WATCH: Palestinian official says two-state solution will destroy Israel

[shira]

The two-state solution will lead to Israel's collapse, the Palestinian Ambassador to Lebanon said in an interview earlier this month.

"With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People?" Abbas Zaki told Lebanon's ANB TV on May 7.

"What will become of all the sacrifices they made - just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward," he said.

Zaki, a member of Fatah's Central Committee, made headlines in 2007 when he said Palestinians in Lebanon should be permitted to set up their own security force in the country's refugee camps to prevent the formation of armed gangs.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088054.html

[LeftishBrit]

1. Either he is indulging in wishful thinking, or playing to his base in the hope that they will not

see him as a traitor for supporting a two-state solution.

Most Israelis are not motivated by concepts of 'the Promised Land and the Chosen People'. Especially not those who were born in Israel. It's just their home country - same as for citizens of anywhere else.

[safeinOhio]

3. Most Israelis do not

want any crazy settlers living next door to them.

[safeinOhio]

2. If Israel is against two states

then lets have the only fair government. One state, one vote for each person. That or it's 2 states or permanent occupation.

[rateyes]

5. One state with a right of return for those sent into exile.

Works for me.

[Shaktimaan]

20. I'm sure it does.

But then, you don't live there, nor does it affect you.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rateyes]

6. East Jerusalem is occupied territory. nt

[Igel]

8. Yup.

Has been for 60 years. It should go back to the authority who was to receive control over the area in the first place.

The Palestinians, you think? Nah. The UN. As long as everybody has equal access to their respectively holy sites, that is, unlike under Jordanian occupation.

[sabbat hunter]

16. the UN

long ago abrogated that right to control Jerusalem, when they did nothing to defend it against the Jordanian invasion or against Jordan in the ensuing years.

It should remain as is, under Israeli political control with each religion controlling their respective holy sites.

[Shaktimaan]

19. all of it? why? np

[safeinOhio]

7. Well, that would be a great idea

as long as all the settlers return to Russia and Eastern Europe.

[LeftishBrit]

9. I didn't get to see the post you're replying to...

but just to point out that not all settlers *come from* Russia or Eastern Europe - and therefore could hardly return there!

Some come from Middle Eastern countries; some from America; some were born in Israel, or indeed in the settlements.

I am totally against the settlement movement and the occupation as a whole, so am not saying any of this to justify it; but the idea that all Israelis or even all settlers are Eastern Europaeans is incorrect.

I would recommend that settlers be relocated to Israel proper, with assistance and compensation where necessary.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. US taxpayers subsidize the move-in and the move-out? Sweet. nt

[LeftishBrit]

14. American aid to Israel is a separate issue...

though certainly the US could consider reducing aid, if the settlements are NOT ended.

To clarify what I said earlier: I don't think *illegal* settlers deserve any compensation whatsoever. However, immigrants who were put there by the government, or couldn't afford anywhere else to live, and their descendents, deserve some sort of assistance from the government when it moves them out.

I suspect that the next question will be about the possible unfairness of that in the light of lack of compensation for Palestinian refugees. And yes, definitely, the Palestinian refugees should be compensated.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. Which settlers are "legal?' Which settlements are "legal?" None, according to

international law.

Some "facts" may have been on the ground longer but that doesn't make them legal.

[Shaktimaan]

18. So what about the Palestinian refugees who moved into EJ post 48 then?

Say, into the Jewish Quarter of the old city... would they also be considered settlers? If not, what is the difference between them and the later Israeli settlers?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

21. How many Palestinians "settlers" are in the Jewish Quarter? When they take it over, we'll talk.

[Shaktimaan]

22. They already did.

In '49. Then they ethnically cleansed the area. Are you really suggesting that all one has to do is completely ethnically cleanse an area for it to become officially yours? If Israel were to throw out every Palestinian from EJ, as the Palestinians/Jordanians did to the Jews living there, then they would cease to be settlers and instead become the rightful owners?

[Shaktimaan]

24. There aren't any more Palestinians in the Jewish Quarter anymore, are there?

It's pretty much all Jewish again, isn't it?

So, are you arguing that all of the Jews living there are illegal settlers squatting on land that should rightfully belong to the Palestinians? Or are you saying that SOME settlements have adequate legal and ethical justifications to vindicate their existence?

I don't see much middle ground here. Either you're defending settlements of one kind or (the equivalent of) settlements of another.

[Shaktimaan]

23. He's talking about Israeli law.

All he's saying is that the settlers who were placed in the territories by the Israeli government or otherwise encouraged to move there do not deserve to be punished for that. When their settlements are closed and they are made to relocate they deserve assistance from the government for doing so.

But the hilltop settlers who illegally struck out on their own to claim land outside of the Israeli government's authority are a different story. These people, (who in fact are the kind of fanatical settlers who inspire such hatred amongst reasonable people), are responsible for their own actions. They should not receive any compensation for having broken Israeli law, stolen or squatted on land belonging to others and for whatever else they may have done.

He's drawing a distinction between people who haven't really done anything wrong and those who symbolize everything people hate about settlers.

Which settlers are "legal?' Which settlements are "legal?" None, according to international law.

Yes, I realize you believe that. The fact remains that no one can really say that with any authority though. Compelling legal arguments exist for both sides yet no body exists with the authority or jurisdiction to rule on the question definitively. From my own limited knowledge of the rules governing these situations I see a huge difference between the legality of certain settlements, the ones in EJ for example, and others, such as those set up by the hilltop youth movement.

Some "facts" may have been on the ground longer but that doesn't make them legal.

That's just the thing I'm saying actually. Many of the Palestinians living there moved in to areas previously inhabited by Jews who were expelled following the '48 war. When Jordan lost control of the land 20 years later Jews were able to move back to these areas, some of which held Jewish populations for thousands of years. What law makes it illegal for these Jewish people to live there that does not apply to the Palestinians who settled there 20 years previously?

Settlements which unlawfully displaced native Palestinians are obviously illegal. But then the same should go for areas owned by Jews who were unlawfully displaced by Jordan. Just because it happened a few years earlier, (or to Jews instead of Palestinians), does not mean that it's legal.

[cali]

11. huh? the settlers, repulsive as they are, are Israeli citizens

not Eastern European or Russian.

[proteus_lives]

12. What a vile statement.

[Shaktimaan]

25. What the hell are you talking about?

Even if most settlers were immigrants from Russia, (which they aren't), what would that have anything to do with anything? You seem to be saying that settlers leaving the OPT and re-settling within Israel's borders isn't good enough... that they have no right to live in the middle east at all, essentially equating all of Israel with the settlements.

So what are you suggesting, that the main issue isn't the settlements but Israel's very existence? Nice.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. It would certainly mean Israel had to completely rethink its national self-image.

Israel would not be threatened by a two-state solution. The zionist dream as interpreted by the majority (not all) of those who call themselves zionists would be utterly destroyed, however.

An awful lot of Israel's justifications for its actions is that it is not just another nation, but was Meant To Be, and hence is not subject to the same moral imperatives as other nations.

A two-state solution involving Israel giving up part of Jerusalem permanently would mean an end to that idea.

It would almost certainly bring down any Israeli government who proposed it, I think.

[Shaktimaan]

17. ummm... bullshit.

Israel would not be threatened by a two-state solution. The zionist dream as interpreted by the majority (not all) of those who call themselves zionists would be utterly destroyed, however.

And you believe that dream to be what exactly?

An awful lot of Israel's justifications for its actions is that it is not just another nation, but was Meant To Be, and hence is not subject to the same moral imperatives as other nations.

Uh huh. Sure. Perhaps you have some examples?