| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Erekat: We won't accept Israel as a Jewish state |
| 2007-11-13 |
| Top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat on Monday rejected Israel's demand that the Palestinians acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state. "There is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined," Erekat told Radio Palestine. Additionally, Erekat said, when agreements are signed, the Palestinians would demand that Israel make a commitment in writing to releasing all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. A senior official in the Prime Minister's Office said in response that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert insists that the Palestinians recognize Israel's Jewish identity, as a condition for Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state. |
| Posted by:Seafarious |
| #15 Also from DAILY TIMES [Pakistan] > ABBAS - Israel will have true peace wid Paleos only iff it withdraws entirely from Arab lands. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-11-13 21:32 |
| #14 DAILY TIMES [Pakistan]/WORLDNEWS > ISRAEL - Isrl. reportedly is willing to return GOLAN HEIGHTS to Syria [parts also claimed by Lebanon]iff Damascus will formally sever ties wid TEHRAN/IRAN + GIVE UP ANY AND ALL SUPPOR-AID, DIRECT = INDIRECT, TO TERROR GROUPS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-11-13 21:31 |
| #13 "There is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined" I suppose the Vatican doesn't count? Seriously though, how does he say that with a straight face? Saudi Arabia won't allow churches or the practice of Christianity (and of course Judaism there would cause mass riots -- but what doesn't, these days?). Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, Kuwait -- these are just a few countries that have components of sharia law codified into their national law. The thing is, Erekat says this, and lemmings simply nod their heads |
| Posted by: PlanetDan 2007-11-13 18:20 |
| #12 What he meant is he won't accept an Israel with Jews in it. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-11-13 16:30 |
| #11 From the Pakistani Journalist Ayaz Amir But to recap the usual factors held responsible for the founding of Pakistan, Islam was not in danger in pre-1947 India. Indeed, considering the sectarian violence and religious bigotry we face today, it was in better health then. Nor was democracy the issue because even if partition had not happened, India was getting democracy once the British left. The Indian Independence Act promised that. So what was the compelling reason for the Muslims to insist on a separate homeland especially when there was no going around the uncomfortable fact that, no matter how generously the frontiers of the new state were drawn, an uncomfortably large number of Muslims would remain in India? The purpose of Pakistan, transcending anything to do with safeguarding Islam or promoting democracy, was to create conditions for the Muslims of India, or those who found themselves in the new state, to recreate the days of their lost glory. |
| Posted by: john frum 2007-11-13 16:29 |
| #10 and of course Israel is much more like the case of Pakistan, than that of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist state, with religion pervading national life. Israel and Pakistan were both founded to provide a safe homeland to a people, one that happened to be defined and identified by religion, but with the goal of creating secular states, in the visions of Ben Gurion and Jinnah. Why Ben Gurions vision worked out better than Jinnahs, is a different question. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2007-11-13 16:19 |
| #9 I dont think we need Erekat to sign a statement "Israel is a Jewish State". If they (effectively) give up on the right of return, and accept that its up to the electorate of Israel to determine the nature of the Israeli state, that is probably close enough. Then its up to Israel, through cultural, immigration, and demographic policies, to preserve its identity. Should the govt and people of Israel fail to do that, they can hardly turn to the Pals and expect them to help with it. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2007-11-13 16:17 |
| #8 "There is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined," Never been to Saudi Arabia, I take it. |
| Posted by: mojo 2007-11-13 15:58 |
| #7 Hmm... this is the great 'moderate' Saeb Erakat ? |
| Posted by: john frum 2007-11-13 15:37 |
| #6 He doesn't recognize Isreal as a State, but demands that Isreal release prisoners from jail, which is part of the State he refuses to recognize. So technically since Isreal doesn't exist, neither do the jails OR the prisoners held within those jails. At least, that's what Isreal would say in a perfect world... |
| Posted by: Charles 2007-11-13 14:31 |
| #5 England used to be a country where religious and national identities were entwined. It should be again. It will be if I have anything to do with it. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-11-13 14:31 |
| #4 There is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined," Erekat told Radio Palestine Saudi Iran and Pakistan come to mind!!!! |
| Posted by: Paul 2007-11-13 13:46 |
| #3 That's probably the difference between "intertwined" and "infused", Grunter. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2007-11-13 13:42 |
| #2 " There is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined." This gets my vote in the "Taquiya of the year" category. What does " Islamic Republic" mean, anyway? |
| Posted by: Grunter 2007-11-13 13:12 |
| #1 I hope the Paleo delegation to Annapolis is seated across from a ginormous portrait of Stephen Decatur. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-11-13 13:07 |