Abbas: We won't recognize Israel as Jewish state

[oberliner]

The Palestinian Authority will not be recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said Saturday, adopting a belligerent tone ahead of his planned statehood bid in September.

The Palestinian leader also criticized demands made by the International Quartet of his Authority, urging the international community to back off.

"Don't order us to recognize a Jewish state," Abbas said. "We won't accept it."

Speaking earlier Saturday, Abbas adopted a more moderate tone, saying that the PA's bid for UN recognition, planned for September, is not meant to isolate Israel or prompt a conflict with the United States.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4114446,00.html

[provis99]

1. I wonder if Israel would recognize an Islamic Palestine?

My guess would be, maybe not...

[oberliner]

2. UN Resolution 181: "Independent Arab and Jewish States...shall come into existence in Palestine"

The United Nations General Assembly decided in 1947 on the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem to be an internationalised city.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1681322.stm

A Jewish State and an Arab State to be established in what was the British Mandatory Palestine.

[karnac]

5. it's a dream nothing else.

the TRUTH
for centuries. a millennium, the islam, the Palestinians were the majority were the majority in this land. they felt entitled to it. they didn't didn't do much with it, but it was holy/sacred in their hearts. and yet they multiplied expanded way past the outskirts. are they entitled?

the Israeli, the Jewish. the few. it was the promised land to them. a few came back the last century. they made the land blossom. planted lemon/orange groves. they died for this tiny land after the holocaust and won. are they entitled?


the truth is one side has the numbers, the other the will. when the latter loses the will, however momentarily,they will lose FOREVER.

So rejoice Arabs. Rejoice Palestinians. You will win eventually.

Only 2 questions. Are entitled?

Will their be any Jews left?

The answers are merely academic and the ultimate solution..

You already know the answers.

Just a matter of when.

[azurnoir]

7. The words were meant to identify the groups at the time

they are now being cynically used to further the artificially created hegemony of the majority Religious/ethnic in Israel and to deny the rights of group that was scattered to create that hegemony
The PLO/PA recognized Israel's right to exist as a state more than a decade ago, the recognition of a Jewish state was tacked on after the fact, if Israel wishes to call it self the Jewish state fine, to use that as a requirement of Palestinians indicates Israel wishes to use that specific Religious/ethnic identification for other purposes

[oberliner]

9. The State of Israel was the name given to the Jewish State

THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
May 14, 1948

Excerpt:

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Declaration+of+Establishment+of+State+of+Israel.htm

[azurnoir]

16. in Eretz-Israel? interesting doesn't that mean Greater Israel including Judea and Samaria?

The declaration was made in Tel-Aviv by Jewish People's Council and as I said previously if Israel wishes to identify itself as the Jewish state fine to attempt to force another group to recognize a specific Religious/ethnic definition is something else, especially when that group has already recognized Israel as just that Israel and its right to exist as a state

[oberliner]

17. No it doesn't

Eretz means land and Israel means Israel.

[azurnoir]

24. separately that's what the words mean as used in passage you cited they mean something more

Declaration of Independence of Israel

The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel commences by drawing a direct line from Biblical times to the present:

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

The laws of the State of Israel make it the homeland of all people of Jewish ancestry.


Usage in Israeli politics

Early government usage of the term, following Israel's establishment, continued the historical link and possible Zionist intentions. Twice in official state documents David Ben Gurion, announced that the state was created "in a part of our small country"<36> and "in only a portion of the Land of Israel."<37> He later noted that "the creation of the new State by no means derogates from the scope of historic Eretz Israel."<38>

Herut and Gush Emunim were amongst the first Israeli political parties basing their land policies on the Biblical narrative discussed above. They attracted attention following the capture of additional territory in the 1967 Six-Day War. They argue that the West Bank should be annexed permanently to Israel for both ideological and religious reasons. This position is in conflict with the basic “land for peace” settlement formula included in UN242. The Likud party, in its platform, supports maintaining Jewish settlement communities in the West Bank and Gaza as the territory is considered part of the historical land of Israel.<39> In her 2009 bid for Prime Minister, Kadimah leader Tzipi Livni used the expression, noting, “we need to give up parts of the Land of Israel,” in exchange for peace with the Palestinians and to maintain Israel as a Jewish state; this drew a clear distinction with the position of her Likud rival and winner, Benjamin Netanyahu

This page was last modified on 17 August 2011 at 07:47.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel

[oberliner]

25. No they don't

Eretz Yisrael Ha-Shlema means Greater Israel (literally "the whole land of Israel")

Eretz Yisrael just means the land of Israel.

The declaration of the State of Israel proclaims that a Jewish state has been established in the land of Israel, which it was.

[azurnoir]

28. I suggest you reread what I posted

seems 'strange' but I seem to remember 'someone' awhile back telling me that Eretz Israel meant greater Israel guess definitions change per usage and it just depends on the political purpose at that moment

[pelsar]

37. its just hebrew....

eretz yisral is the land of israel, add the world shlema (whole) and you get the political meaning. Either you didn't understand or the "someone" got themselves confused.

[azurnoir]

38. oh I understood however the point remains deny all you want to

as I said a 'poster' possibly the same who is telling what Eretz Israel mean now also told me it meant exactly what I said it did

[karnac]

4. they would IF doing so would guarantee THEIR existence.

israel/jewish folk dont care if a nautzi islamic state exists next to them as long as they can EXIST. as a race. as a culture. as the "chosen" last ditch stand when they can live in a modicum of peace.

if not, well just another unsupportable threat.

[aquart]

3. God forbid they have to deal with an audit.

[Ken Burch]

6. They shouldn't have to. It should be enough to recognize the State of Israel, period.

It's always been childish that Bibi was insisting on them "recognizing Israel AS..."

Recognizing the State of Israel(which the PA did in 1994, ending the recognition thing then, actually) would have the same practical effect anyway.

[oberliner]

10. Kinda childish not to as well

Why not just extend that recognition? If it's just words anyway, what's the big deal?

[Ken Burch]

11. If it's just words, then the words were said in 1994

It's absurd for the Israelis to STILL be saying that the Pals haven't recognized Israel. Why can't they just admit that that part of it was dealt with during Oslo?

[oberliner]

12. If it could lead to peace, who cares?

Be the bigger person.

[Ken Burch]

13. That's what you need to say to the Israelis

The only reason Bibi is insisting that the Pals say it the way he wants it said is so he can say "we MADE them say the words". Bibi has no excuse for being like that. Recognizing the state is enough. It's arrogant to demand anything more.

[oberliner]

15. I am just saying if I was Abbas I would call Netanyahu's bluff

Netanyahu repeatedly says that all Abbas has to do is say these "six simple words" - if I was Abbas, I'd go ahead and say it - what do you lose by saying it? Nothing, really. And what do you gain? You throw it back into Netanyahu's court - it looks really bad for Netanyahu if in return the Israeli government makes no serious steps towards peace.

[Shaktimaan]

29. Is it enough?

The entire concept of Israel is that is is a Jewish state. Recognizing Israel's existence but not its right to exist as Jewish state seems to be an important distinction.
Your argument might have merit if it were not for the Palestinians intransigence. If they do in fact recognize Israel as a Jewish state then why not admit it? One can only assume that they do NOT accept this definition of the state of Israel.

Definitions like this are not mere semantics. They are the meaning upon which treaties are formed.

Abbas won't say it for political reasons. He would be seen as making a concession. But this is a concession that was already supposed to have been made.

The repercussions of not saying it is to basically invalidate any meaningful acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish, Zionist state.

[aranthus]

14. The thing is,

if the Arabs and the Palestinians really mean to let the Israelis live in peace, then it doesn't matter if they say it. If they don't, then it still doesn't matter if they say it. I think the Israelis are caught between their hope for peace and their fear of Arab intentions. So they try to force the Arabs to prove their intentions by these declarations, and that just delays a peace agreement. Except those declarations wouldn't prove anything. The only proof is if the peace lasts or not. Which is why it's important to make the peace even if the Palestinians won't recognize a Jewish state. It creates certainty. If the Arabs keep the peace, then they keep the peace. If they don't, then they never will.

[Ken Burch]

18. You can equally say that Palestinians are caught between THEIR hope for peace

(which can only come if they get self-determination)and their fear of Israeli intentions(as represented by the continued expansion of the illegal settlements and the existence of the multi-party "Land of Israel" caucus in the Knesset.

Palestinians must recognize Israeli fears and the reasons Israelis distrust them. Equally, Israelis must accept that Palestinians have the same fears and equal grounds for distrust. To continue to say "WE can be trusted but THEY can't" is to knowingly damage and ultimately destroy any hope for peace. This isn't that hard to understand.

Just admit that neither side has a monopoly on fear OR virtue.

[aranthus]

20. And if the Palestinians had not made war on Israel's existence for the last 60 years;

if groups like Hamas, which openly seeks the destruction of the Jewish state, were not in power; if Palestinians did not continue to demand RoR, which obviously means the end of the Jewish state; and if they were not so bloody adamant about not recognizing a Jewish state; I might believe that that there were equal reasons for the distrust. Also, the Palestinians have to trust that the Israelis will make peace after the Palestinians recognize a Jewish state and give up violence. And they can go right back to violent means if the Israelis renege. So the Palestinians aren't actually giving up a thing.

Also, Israel is being asked to give up something tangible for peace; valuable strategic land, to which they have at least a colorable claim. In exchange they get a promise. Once the peace is made, the Palestinians get something real; there isn't anything more to trust the Israelis to do. It's the Israelis who have to trust that there will be peace after the peace is made.

[Dick Dastardly]

19. If the Palestinian government rejected this, it would be ADMITTING

That it doesn't really want a peaceful two state solution and doesn't want the Jews to have a real state, but instead it wants a two stage solution leading to the eventual dissolution of Israel.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

43. The Jews already have a "real state."

The Palestinians don't. I think the onus is on the occupying power.

[aranthus]

8. Israel needs to withdraw from the West Bank now.

Let the Palestinians have their state, and then wait for the next war to finally resolve the conflict.

[King_David]

21. Yes I agree nt

[shira]

22. From how much of the WB should Israel withdraw? Not that I disagree... n/t

[aranthus]

23. As much as necessary

so that Israel can be sure that if there is another war, or if the violence does not stop, that it's because the Arabs will never really make peace with the Jewish state. For the same reason, they should withdraw from the Golan.

[shira]

26. Israel will be blamed no matter how much they withdraw, that's just a fact...

I'd be reluctant to give up high ground like the Golan where any Joe Shmoe could use small arms fire to terrorize towns/cities. Other than that, I'm resigned to the fact that peace just won't be negotiated and Israel will fight more future battles no matter what so they may as well give up as much land as possible w/o compromising too much on security. When Syria/Palestine is ready to negotiate for the remaining part, they can.

[aranthus]

27. Not the point.

The point is that Israelis will know. Either their hopes for peace will be realized, or else they will have no doubt that those hopes are doomed. The point is to create clarity and certainty for Israelis and Arabs.

[Shaktimaan]

36. The Israelis will know what?

that "it's because the Arabs will never really make peace with the Jewish state"? As you put it.

Bullshit. A failure to achieve peace at any given point merely proves that the attempt failed, regardless of whether it was a good deal or not. To say that it represents a failure on the Arabs part to desire peace, now or EVER EVER AGAIN is absurd.

Israel doesn't need the kind of clarity you're offering. It needs a bilaterally negotiated peace deal that stands a real chance of succeeding. Proving a point today won't help anyone. Nor will it render the issue permanently decided. What do you think will happen... "Duh, OK, now we know that our hopes of peace are permanently doomed forever. Prepare for permanent war. No do-overs."

[shaayecanaan]

40. I rather wish the Palestinians would do the same...

assemble a line of foreign leaders, and make a public statement that the Palestinian Authorities endorse the Geneva Accord and are willing to sign a peace with Israel along those lines.

Even if Israel doesnt agree, it will finally put to bed any notion that the Palestinians have a partner in the peace process.

[Shaktimaan]

30. This strategy hardly helped...

in Gaza.

Israel is still blamed for that failure.

[shaayecanaan]

31. It helped plenty...

Israeli soldiers were dying at a steady rate during the occupation of Gaza. Moreover, there really wasn't any way to defend the Gaza settlements from mortar and rocket fire. The moment they left Gaza, they stopped dying. As has been amply demonstrated in Vietnam, Korea and Lebanon, withdrawing your soldiers is an excellent way of preventing them from dying in combat.

Likewise, Israeli soldiers were dying at the rate of 2 to 3 a month in Lebanon prior to the withdrawal. Israel didn't withdraw from Lebanon because of the kindness of its heart or as magnanimous gesture to the Lebanese people. It withdrew because of the four mothers' movement and because it was tired of shipping home the corpses of its baby boys in body bags.

By the criterion of saving soldiers' lives, the withdrawals from both Gaza and South Lebanon were wildly successful. One can say with near-complete certainty that Israeli soldiers die much less frequently when they are not occupying Lebanese territory.

The fundamental mistake in your post (and I do mean fundamental, because there is profound, almost willing ignorance amongst pro-Israel people when it comes to this simple fact) is that the occupation is not the guarantor of Israeli security in the West Bank. After all, if the IDF could ensure security on its own, why couldnt they do it in either Gaza or Lebanon? The reason why the West Bank has not gone the way of Gaza or Lebanon is because of Jordan. The Hashemites fear Palestinian nationalists almost as much as the Israelis and they go to great lengths to make sure that they cannot operate out of Jordanian territory.

If and when the Hashemites fall and Jordan goes the way or Egypt or Tunisia, then we have a different situation. To be quite honest, I don't think the Israelis will withdraw from the West Bank as readily as they did in the case of Gaza or Lebanon. But they will have to withdraw the settlements, particularly some of the outer settlements such as Ariel. They are too easy to attack and too difficult to defend.

[Shaktimaan]

35. I don't think it's the same thing. re: Gaza and the WB.

The fundamental mistake in your post (and I do mean fundamental, because there is profound, almost willing ignorance amongst pro-Israel people when it comes to this simple fact) is that the occupation is not the guarantor of Israeli security in the West Bank.

Well, I certainly disagree with you, if that's what you mean.

Look at what the West Bank situation was like directly following Oslo's signing and Israel's military redeployment... it was a total mess. As soon as Israel left terrorism jumped exponentially. And it didn't drop significantly until Israel's re-redeployment (or whatever it's called.) In that case it turned out that the soldier presence WAS the only thing keeping massive terrorism at bay.

The Hashemites fear Palestinian nationalists almost as much as the Israelis and they go to great lengths to make sure that they cannot operate out of Jordanian territory.

With regard to imported rockets perhaps. But if Israel left the area completely, tore down the security barrier and checkpoints, leaving the WB entirely to its own devices then what is there to prevent it from merely replaying its recent history? I don't think Jordan has to fall for Hamas to operate out of the West Bank. Nor do I think anyone needs to operate out of Jordanian territory to make rockets or plan suicide missions.

To be quite honest, I don't think the Israelis will withdraw from the West Bank as readily as they did in the case of Gaza or Lebanon.

Of course not. They want to stay in the WB and annex the settlements. No one cared about Lebanon beyond keeping the border secure. But a lot of Israelis really do think that the WB should belong to Israel. Not a ton of them, but it's a bigger deal than Gaza was, for sure.

What all Israelis DO care about is security though. And Gaza showed them that a presence really IS needed to prevent militants from attacking at will. Yes, soldiers died in Gaza. But they did not have the out sized security problem that Gaza now presents. As much as that sucks, Gaza is in the middle of nowhere. A similar situation in the WB would truly be a disaster. THAT is what every Israeli cares about.

And the withdrawal from Lebanon led to Hezbollah arming themselves to the teeth, breaching the border and causing a war where MANY soldiers died. If Gaza and Lebanon are what we have to look forward to regarding the West Bank then I fail to see how Israel can risk leaving.

As has been amply demonstrated in Vietnam, Korea and Lebanon, withdrawing your soldiers is an excellent way of preventing them from dying in combat.

Is Vietnam really a good example of successful results following a redeployment? And if Hanoi overlooked NYC instead of Saigon do you think we would have left so readily? Keeping your soldiers safe is great, don't get me wrong. But not at the expense of civilians dying instead.

[shaayecanaan]

39. Tosh

"Look at what the West Bank situation was like directly following Oslo's signing and Israel's military redeployment... it was a total mess."

The Oslo accords were signed in 1993, and effectively marked the end of the First Intifada. Thereafter followed seven years in which diaspora Palestinians returned to the territories, began investing, building apartment blocks on the beach, and so forth. Seven years in which the occupied territories were relatively quiet, and far from being "a total mess".

Of course, it turned out that not only did Israel have no intention of leaving the West Bank, but in fact was building settlements in even larger numbers. The disappointment in the peace process would eventually fuel the second intifada in 2000.

"What all Israelis DO care about is security though. And Gaza showed them that a presence really IS needed to prevent militants from attacking at will."

So put them back there then, if thats all there is to it. Gaza is only forty square miles in area. The IDF could probably reoccupy it in about three days, maybe a week at a stretch.

"But if Israel left the area completely, tore down the security barrier and checkpoints, leaving the WB entirely to its own devices then what is there to prevent it from merely replaying its recent history?

You mean the recent history of the PA arresting militants, submitting its textbooks to USAID for auditing to make sure there is no anti-semitism, building the institutions of a state, a competent police and security force, and all that jazz?

I expect that recent history would continue. How exactly would a peace agreement help Hamas' political prospects? After all, their entire message is premised on the belief that Israel will never agree to a peace deal.

"Is Vietnam really a good example of successful results following a redeployment?"

Its an excellent example. The US withdrew its forces, and their soldiers stopped dying. Once the south fell, and after an initial period of bloodletting in which 50 000 or so of its opponents died (which was about the amount of Vietnamese that the US would kill in two months) the new Communist government began normalising relations with western governments almost as soon as they left. In fact the Vietnamese government saved the lives of up to a million people when they drove the Khmer Rouge out of Phnom Penh.

Today, Vietnamese youths grow up watching Mickey Mouse cartoons, and former American veterans go on tours of old NVA tunnels and share a beer with the same guy they were shooting at thirty years ago. The Vietnamese seem to have borne remarkably few grudges after the US killed 2 million of its people. The domino theory turned out to be a sham. By any measure the withdrawal from Vietnam was a tremendous success.

[aranthus]

32. Israel didn't withdraw from Gaza for PR reasons.

They withdrew to get their people out of a difficult situation. I don't care that the world would blame Israel for the start of a new war. I care that Israelis themselves have no doubt that the next war happens because they are in a war to the death. I think a major war is coming anyway. If that happens, then it will be just another in the pointless series of wars that Israel has had to fight (in part because the Israelis always held out hope for peace after each war was over). Now maybe those hopes are well founded, and maybe their not. But no one, expecially the Israelis , will ever know unless Israel either reaches a peace agreement with the Palestinians, or else if Israel offers so much for peace that any Arab rejection means that they have no intention of making peace with the Jewish state at all.

[shira]

33. Negotiations will not result in a peace settlement anytime soon, so...

...what do you propose?

1. Israel holds onto the WB
2. Israel turns most of it over without a peace settlement
3. Other

[Mosby]

34. I'll take door number 1

Right now very little good will come from a partial withdrawal from the WB.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

41. I'll take door 2

Its not Israel's land in the first place so the Palestinians shouldn't really need to bargain to get their land back

[shira]

42. Abbas said he cannot even recognize a Jewish people who have a right to self determination...

http://cifwatch.com/2011/02/10/palestine-papers-the-guardian-buried-notes-by-palestinians-on-why-they-shouldnt-recognize-the-existence-of-the-jewish-people/

From the Palestine Papers:

One paper is called “Talking Points on Recogntion of a Jewish State,” where the PLO details its reasons for not accepting Israel as a Jewish state.

The paper includes an annex that discusses the implications of such recognition. One of them is:

Recognizing the Jewish state implies recognition of a Jewish people and recognition of its right to self-determination. Those who assert this right also assert that the territory historically associated with this right of self-determination (i.e., the self-determination unit) is all of Historic Palestine. Therefore, recognition of the Jewish people and their right of self-determination may lend credence to the Jewish people’s claim to all of Historic Palestine.

See? The Jewish people don't exist!

I wonder if it's just as fine to proclaim that the Palestinian people don't exist.

:eyes:

Meanwhile, the article shows how Arafat and Abbas' PA are busy denying any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount...