Tuesday, March 08, 2011

Arabs don’t want a "two-state solution"

From Ynet News, 27 May 2010, by Dan Calic:

Facts speak for themselves: Arabs don’t accept vision of two sovereign states

Twenty five years after  the British gave away 76% of the land they promised as a homeland for the Jewish people [1922] the United Nations voted  to partition the remaining 24% into two states, one Arab, one Jewish [1947]. This gave the Jews a mere 12% of what they were originally promised. Nevertheless, the Jews said “yes” to the deal.

The Arab answer was an ominous “no.” One day after Israel declared independence the Arabs attacked intending to destroy it.

Yet here we are more than 60 years later and we are led to believe the answer to the conflict is another two-state “solution,” albeit with the land sacrifices coming from only one side - Israel.

And what are the Arabs offering? In a word, nothing. Unless you consider their vague promises and poor track record on curbing terror as enough.

The repeated Arab failure to live up to promises of curbing terror forced Israel to take the matter into its own hands by constructing the security barrier. This has proven to be a highly effective deterrent, saving untold innocent lives. Since its construction terror attacks from these areas have been all but eliminated.

Another matter Israel took upon itself was a voluntary withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The “thank you” it received was approximately 8,000 rocket and mortar attacks until it finally had to take action against Hamas in Jan. ’09.

Does Hamas support a two-state solution? Group leader Khaled Mashaal said “has not and will not recognize Israel.” Hamas’ charter calls for Israel’s destruction. This puts them in the “no” column. Mahmoud Abbas is already on record refusing to accept Israel as a Jewish state. His party’s constitution likewise calls for the destruction of Israel. This puts Fatah in the “no” column.

So who supports a two-state solution?

In spite of undeniable evidence to the contrary, the prevailing opinion of President Obama and most western leaders is that Abbas supports a two-state solution. But is this really the case?

Abbas creating new rules
The facts speak for themselves: He is on record denying any Jewish connection to Jerusalem, saying “I challenge this claim is so.” His demands include making Jerusalem the capital of “Palestine,” thus all Jewish connection to the holy Old City would vanish, leaving Jews without access to their two holiest sites, Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

His precise quote when asked if he would accept Israel as a Jewish state was “I do not accept it.”

He attends mosques where vitriolic sermons are spoken, blaming the Jews for all the Muslim’s problems, suggesting the only course of action is “jihad” against the “Zionist entity.” He routinely attends events where the map of Israel is completely covered by a Palestinian flag. He names public squares after suicide bombers who murdered innocent Israeli civilians.

His continued demand the so-called “refugees” be allowed to flood into Israel, would eliminate its Jewish majority. Yet isn’t the intent of a two-state solution based on two distinct sovereign states, one of which is Jewish?

Former Israeli PM Ehud Barack was willing to give up over 90% of Judea/Samaria and divide Jerusalem in 2000 at the Camp David ll negotiations.

The Arab answer? “No.”

Under PM Ehud Olmert, Israel offered approximately 98% of Judea/Samaria, land swaps and a divided Jerusalem. Abbas dismissed Olmert’s offer, yet he recently told US Envoy George Mitchell, “the points agreed upon with Olmert are agreements with the government of Israel.” Apparently, he’s creating his own rules of diplomatic negotiations now.

While Presidents Bush, Obama and many other world leaders have endorsed a two-state solution, what these same leaders don’t appear to understand is that key Arab players don’t. Some believe Abbas might accept a two-state solution, but only as a first step toward the ultimate elimination of Israel.

Lest we forget a key reason why Hamas and Fatah have been at odds with each other, and what motivated Hamas to violently take over Gaza in 2007: Namely, Fatah’s talks with Israel, which in the mind of Hamas leaders suggests Fatah has given “legitimacy” to Israel. This is completely unacceptable to Hamas to the point of being blasphemous.

The only two-state “solution” the Muslims may truly endorse is one state controlled by Fatah and the other by Hamas…once Israel has been eliminated.
Post a Comment