BBC (Wednesday): Palestinian groups disown truce

[Jack Rabbit]

From the BBC Online
Dated Wednesday February 9 13:01 GMT (5:01 am PST)

Palestinian groups disown truce

Hamas and Islamic Jihad have said they are not bound by the ceasefire agreed between Palestinian and Israeli leaders at a summit in Egypt on Tuesday.

The two militant groups were at the forefront of attacks on Israel during the Palestinian uprising, but have been observing an unofficial truce.

The ceasefire is designed to end four years of Israeli-Palestinian violence.

Israel is expected to free hundreds of Palestinian prisoners shortly, and hand over control of some West Bank towns.

We have another thread open about a group of rabbis praying for the failure of peace talks and we have this. It is clear that there are bitter-enders on both sides of this conflict who are the real enemies of both the Israelis and Palestinians.

Peace will be achieved when Israeli and Palestinian leaders have the strength and will to marginalize these extremists.

[egbtpl]

1. ok

"Peace will be achieved when Israeli and Palestinian leaders have the strength and will to marginalize these extremists."

Fair enough. But who will marginalize Israel's settlements and development on Palestinian land? No peace can possibly exist between any two peoples as long as one is taking away the land of the other.

Would New Englanders be OK if Canada started developing in Maine, Vermont, and New York? What if this theft of land were condemned worldwide (obviously it would), yet it continued? What if a Canadian wall was built dividing up Maine down through upper New York.

Would the United States agree to let this continue?

[egbtpl]

2. Furthermore

do you think there might be some "extreme" groups in this situation I have suggested who would not want to take part in a truce?

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Did I say otherwise?

I've been posting on I/P affairs at DU for three years and have always said that a dismantling of settlements is necessary to achieve peace. A Palestinian state would have no real sovereignty if it were to be dotted with enclaves of foreign settlements while a foreign power guarantees the security of those settlements. Some settlements could be incorporated into Israel in a land swap, which would be consistent with Resolution 242; nevertheless, outlaying settlements, such as Hebron, would have to be evacuated.

I mention Hebron since settler violence against local Palestinians is often reported. Some of the loudest cries of protest against dismantling outlaying settlements will come from there. Nevertheless, it will have to be accomplished.

[egbtpl]

4. Sorry to offend

If I did -- it was not meant that way. I am only worried about what I perceive very recently as a hush-hush attitude towards the settlements. While all this grand talk is of hope and reconciliation, there is hardly a mention of settlement growth, which continues to this day. How this issue can find itself ignored or only spoken of in hushed tones within the major newspapers is very difficult for me to comprehend.

This conflict is and always has been primarily about land. The fact that one side is still taking from the other, yet this theft is not talked about or is so easily dismissed is very disturbing. There really cannot be any peace if it continues. The issue needs to now be moved to the forefront, and unfortunately, I do not (yet) see that happening.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. No offense taken

What Palestinian Islamist militants and the bitter-enders among the settlers have in common is a rejection of a two state solution and a belief that all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea belongs to them by divine right. They expect either the Israelis to cheerfully go home (although many know no other home than Israel) or the Palestinians to cheerfully waltz across the Allenby Bridge into Jordan. That's not going to happen. Such a solution, whether imposed by the Israelis or the Palestinians, can only be accomplished with a humanitarian catastrophe.

A one-state democratic solution sounds nice, but I doubt you could sell it to Jews who either survived the Holocaust or know somebody who did. That's most Israelis. Holocaust could even be extended here to include the expulsion of Jewish populations from Arab lands after World War II. If Israeli Jews feel uncomfortable about the prospect of living in a country where they are a minority, they have a solid historical basis to feel that way.

That, of course, is no excuse to go into occupied territory and build housing in which the residents of the territory cannot live and roads on which they cannot travel. Israel has a right to occupy the Palestinian Territories for security, but not to build settlements in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention or in any other way to make a permanent claim on the territory. Resolution 242 can only be fulfilled when Israel recognizes a sovereign Palestinian state -- and, as far as I am concerned, the Palestinians don't need the Israelis' permission to declare one in the West Bank and Gaza -- and the Palestinians agree to a non-aggression pact with Israel.

So, it seems we have come to the two-state solution as the only viable solution. There are two nations west of Jordan, although only one is incorporated in a state. Nevertheless, it is also a fact that about 80% of the population inside the Green Line is Jewish and over 90% beyond it is Arab; it shouldn't be too hard to settle on a permanent boundary that approximates the Green Line. Those who oppose such a solution often do so because they simply deny the humanity of the other nationality. In doing so, they simply refute their own.