| Submit your comments on this article |
| Middle East |
| Palestinians Ready to Push for One State |
| 2004-01-09 |
| JERUSALEM (AP) - The Palestinian premier said Thursday that if Israel unilaterally imposed a new boundary with Palestinian areas he would respond by pushing for a single Arab-Jewish state - a move that could spell disaster for Israel. A single country including Gaza, the West Bank and Israel would mean that the Jewish state would soon have an Arab majority. That would force Israel to choose between giving Palestinians the right to vote and risk losing the country’s Jewish character, or becoming a minority-ruled country like apartheid South Africa. Or becoming a nasty, brutal "civil" war. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned at the end of last year he would order unilateral separation from the Palestinian areas if peace talks do not show progress in the coming months. Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia told The Associated Press that such unilateral moves would make the drive for a Palestinian state a "meaningless slogan." Bright boy! "If the situation continues as it is now we will go for the one-state solution," he said. Qureia said the binational state idea is his own idea, not official policy, though he said Palestinians suggested it shortly after Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Mideast war. Edward Said also pushed it. He was just as loopy. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell immediately rejected the idea of a single state on Thursday, saying only a two-country solution to the violence would work. "We don’t think your kind can live with their kind!" For years, Israeli doves have cited the "demographic issue" in their calls for Israel to relinquish control of all or most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of a peace treaty. About 3.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza, in addition to 1.2 million Arab citizens of Israel. About 5.5 million Jews live in Israel. Some Israeli analysts and politicians have said that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s goal has always been a single state eventually dominated by Palestinians. Arafat has often declared that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be decided by the higher Palestinian birth rate. "’cause we Paleos can breed like rats!" However, Arafat has said repeatedly over the past decade that he is committed to the agreements his signed with Israel, leading to a Palestinian state alongside Israel. And then comes Dire Revenge™! Adopting the demographic argument, Sharon this week told members of his hard-line Likud Party that any peace accord would require removal of some Jewish settlements in the West Bank and creation of a Palestinian state. Polls show Sharon’s proposals enjoy considerable support among Israelis. Survival or demographic suicide, yep, choice is clear. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 A year from now, Jordan will be building its own fence, the UN will be administering Paleostan as one large refugee camp, and Arafat and his hardboys will be putting all the cash into Switzerland. |
| Posted by: john 2004-1-9 9:05:39 PM |
| #15 From 1949 to June '67 the West Bank was part of Jordan and there was no thought of a Palestinian state.Arafat and the PLO lost their attempt to take over Jordan in early'70s.In a brilliant attempt to gain legitamcy,Arafat proclaimed himself the voice of the Palestinian people who's land Israel was occupying.After a few years the "international community"(esp. media,UN,West Europe,US liberals)came to accept Arafat's invented Palestine as real and consisting of the West Bank. Arafat could have had a Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank at any time during past 10 years.He has refused quite possibly for one of two reasons.1)He believes the occupied territory is not just West Bank,but all Israel,and refuses to settle for half a loaf.2)He knows West Bank is not sufficient for a viable country.Large population,no resources,dependant on outside sources for money-that will probably dry up once there is a country.No ports for trade,so all trade has to go through unsympathetic neighbors. The reason the Israeli fence is so hated is it kills what appears to be prefered Palestinian option-a self-rule West Bank under Israel,with the belief that in time population growth will result in Islamic Israel.Assuming this is plan,any attempt to create a West Bank Palestine will be sabotaged by Arafat.Israel is saying w/fence,inside fence is Jewish Israel,outside is Islamic Palestine;which is why fence is so bitterly opposed by Palestinians. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-1-9 8:37:06 PM |
| #14 DS - are you looking for the snarky thing - or the real thing? I'm not kidding. There is a motherlode of info on how the Trans-Jordan became the Jordan of today because the Brits wanted to give a kingdom to the Hashemite "King" at the end of WW-I, etc. If you want the whole thing, well, I've posted tons of links in the past here on RB that cover the Sykes-Picot treaty, The Paris Accords, The Balfour Declaration, the 4 different UN plans for the creation of Israel, tons of stuff that makes it clear what should be. As for the other Arabs, no one wants the Paleos. As mentioned above by Anonymous, Jordan (the real Palestine for the Arabs - Israel is fucking Israel) regretted its one overture to help them - they tried to overthrow the Govt. The Saudis are happy to throw money, but that is ending with the growth of their internal problems. The faux-palestinians are a myth. The Arabs who live in the disputed lands taken by Israel in '67 & '73 should just be deported. The West Bank and Gaza are the remnants of the stupidity of the worst UN Plan for creating Israel - which was the one chosen, of course. You can start with these and Google the various treaties and terms for more links if you don't like mine... FrontPage - this is the clearest article on who what when and where. Much more at Palestine Facts. I used to recommend Wikipedia, but they have tried to rewrite their pages to create a politically-correct version (Arab complaints) and I haven't yet taken the time to see how accurate it is - or isn't - now. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-1-9 7:37:30 PM |
| #13 Dripping Sarcasm, let me take a stab at your question. I see the answer as NO. The Jordanians already let the Palestinian leadership in and Arafat tried to take of Jordan. Also, I'm certain Jordan prefers a buffer state between her and Israel so that any pressure from other Arab states to attack Israel can be deflected onto the Palestinians. I imagine Palestine (west bank) falling into civil war, becoming a failed state along the lines of Somalia, and the world watching and doing nothing about it. Prefering the UN to handle the problem. The UN will botch the job, lots of people will die, and in a few decades the Pals might get their act together. I imagine Palestine (Gaza) surviving as a semi-facsist theocracy run by Hamas. Eventually they will push Israel to far and be either (a) handed over to Egypt or (b) Pushed into Egypt and the property claimed. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-1-9 3:45:35 PM |
| #12 Jordan won't touch the Paleos, neither will Saudi Arabia. Egypt could have had Gaza back by now if they wanted, Israel offered to turn them over. But the stratgy has been to let Israel suffer for what they conquered. That leave Syria. With their tentacles in Lebanon right now slowly starting to strain, and the world community, and especially the US keeping an eye on them, its doubtful they would try. So, it looks like they Paleos will really be on their own. If they become a failed state, I suspect that either Israel, the US, and/or a collition of Arab nations (with Iraq in the lead) stepping in before any single Arab nation will risk it. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-1-9 3:05:41 PM |
| #11 A ver, very, very small victory, that will descend into a fierce civil war within six months of fence-completion, the nice thing about this is that hamas is'nt wat it used to be and that is bad news for the worlds oldest terrorist. Fun times ahead. |
| Posted by: chinditz 2004-1-9 2:53:50 PM |
| #10 i say build a fuckin huge 100,0000 pound cluster bomb and dump it straight on the palo plebs, tough but fair i think. |
| Posted by: Jon Shep 2004-1-9 2:50:53 PM |
| #9 Arafat from what I've heard has tons of cash in some bank in Iran or Egypt, not sure which one, and all he wants is victory. Victory period. A paleo state would be a small victory to terroism? |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-1-9 2:01:41 PM |
| #8 Poor Paleo's, nobody wants them. Israel will finish their fence and the issue will be reframed in such a manner as to be unsympathetic to all but trust-fund recipients seeking significance and aging elites desperate to validate the struggles of their youth. We will no longer even bother to argue with the greying grandma's blabbing on about US hegemony, rather we will just give them a pat on the head and a sympathetic nod as we try to stifle a a collective yawn - looking for a graceful exit from the table conversations they always manage to ruin at family get-togethers. |
| Posted by: B 2004-1-9 1:39:24 PM |
| #7 Good 'bloggers, please give me your considered opinions on this question that just popped into my head, you from whom I've learned so much in the past year.... A large (if not the largest) part of the reason why there are any people who call themselves palestinians today is because these poor schnooks have been designated by their Arab brothers to be pathetic, angry, political sympathy tools that are maintained at just enough level to exist (albeit at a barely human level) and convince the world that somehow, Israel is at fault for their condition. Now, let's project into a hypothetical, not-so-far-off future, and we see two states; Israel and Palestine. Do the powers that maintain the feeble life support of these people as a political entity, suddenly allow for the actual existance of a soveriegn nation, or do they immediately step in to "help set up" and after a brief trial period, just annex it, after declaring some pap like, "...the Israeli cruelty lasted for so many years that the palestinian people are unable to get it together." I'm talking neigboring states like syria, jordan, egypt etc... . For example, so many "palestinians" were absorbed by Jordan already, wouldn't it just make sense for Jordan to say, "they're really our people, living on land that borders our own, why not just..." What's the real chance there really be a Palestinian state, whether some high-minded palestinians actually want to step out from the dark ages or not? I mean, except for their common hatred of all things Jewish and/or Western, do these countries get along well enough to say, " Sure! We can always use another voice in the cacaphonus Arab brotherhood!" Please enlighten me with your opinions. Many thanks! |
| Posted by: Dripping Sarcasm 2004-1-9 12:12:48 PM |
| #6 first thing to consider is that the person giving the answers is a Israeli left winger second thing to consider is that this left winger has spent much of his time researching unsavory aspects of the early history of Israel - the few arab towns that were intimidated in the war of independence. the third thing to think about is that the Roman's lost militarily; the situation is different today, the barbarians weapons are our own Islamic apologists, socialists, etc. as well as the barbarian population in the west |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-1-9 11:33:44 AM |
| #5 The Jordanians might wanna consider prepositioning a few dozen refugee camps. There's always the possibility of a second Nakba. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-9 9:57:00 AM |
| #4 Absolutely the Palestinians do not want peace. They want what Arafat wants: a Palestinian communist state without any Jews, and they have demonstrated they are willing to murder to get it. The fence will be done this year. Israel will confer a nation status on Palestine, and this will close the matter. Let us see the Palestinians build a country with the assholes they have leading them now. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-1-9 8:50:21 AM |
| #3 I think Sharon is on the right track here.By dismantleing the settlements(meaning thier complete destruction)and complete disengagment from areas of Paleo authority.Of course that won't stop suicide bombers and other attacks.Then Sharon can slap the world in the face with the fact the Paleos absolutly do not want peace. |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-1-9 7:20:52 AM |
| #2 The Palestinian premier said Thursday that if Israel unilaterally imposed a new boundary with Palestinian areas he would respond by pushing for a single Arab-Jewish state - a move that could spell disaster for Israel Well. A "single Arab-Jewish state" would indeed "spell disaster for Israel". But Ahmed's "pushing" for it won't, 'cuz all his "pushing" will come to nothing. True, if the Paleos suddenly change course now and say that they want a "one state solution" as opposed to a "two state solution", perhaps Kofi and the feckless Euros will march to the new Pali tune. But we Amis won't. If anything, it will only deepen our conviction that Paleo words are empty-- who knows, maybe even our State Department will finally wise up! And-- thanks to Al Qaeda-- thank you, Osama!-- and thanks to our muscular response to 9/11-- thank you, Dubyah!-- the U.S. will be calling the shots in the ME for the foreseeable future. Earth to Ahmed: you can puff out your chest and pretend that that ain't true-- you Paleos are proven experts at chest-puffery and reality-denial-- but you should catch a clue from your cousin Mo over in Libya. If indeed it's time to change your stance, it's to change it from "bad doggie" to "good doggie"... capiche? |
| Posted by: TPF 2004-1-9 1:59:28 AM |
| #1 The Palestinian premier said Thursday that if Israel unilaterally imposed a new boundary with Palestinian areas he would respond by pushing for a single Arab-Jewish state - a move that could spell disaster for Israel. Who says that Israel has to accept? For years, Israeli doves have cited the "demographic issue" in their calls for Israel to relinquish control of all or most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of a peace treaty. And once the wall is finished, Israel CAN relinquish control. ALL of it. Disengagement. And leave the Paleos to rot in their own self-made hell. However, Arafat has said repeatedly over the past decade that he is committed to the agreements his signed with Israel, leading to a Palestinian state alongside Israel. It's one thing for Arafart to say he's committed to his agreements, but as recent history has proven, an entirely different thing for him to live up to his obligations. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-1-9 1:40:03 AM |