The scion of a Christian family who’s spent the last 8 years in prison for being a member of the PFLP, surrounded by Muslim radicals, a recruiter for the Qassam brigades? A former member of the Fatah Hawks, currently in charge of enforcing the rule and will of a man considered a traitor to the Palestinian people and who’s prisoners refuse to speak to him in any other language other than Hebrew, to show their opinion of him?
A cartoonist who’s grown up in London?
A scholar born in Jerusalem, raised in Cairo and currently living in New York?
Abbas. Would he accept anything less than full independence, which includes controlling a full military force with its own ability to (at least theoretically…Israel and its other neighbors would be tough to beat) defend its borders by itself?
ETA: But really, I’m more wanting to know what most Israelis would be willing to accept, re: military in the WB.
While I’m sure you can find very many different POVs among Israelis, I dare guess that most would indeed strongly object to a militarized Palestine in the WB.
Especially after seeing the situation in Gaza. Short-range rockets from the WB could easily cover most of Israel’s major cities.
Full recognition to the Jewish state of Israel and it’s eternal right to exist as such in its current location.
Gave up any claims to right of return and compensation to anything outside of their negotiated borders.
Gave up claims to anything other than Eastern Jerusalem, and didn’t claim any of it as their capitol.
Engaged in equitable land-swaps in good faith.
Pretty much any and everything else Israel needs/wants/dreams/demands to get a permanent deal done, from their perspective.
…except the state of Palestine insists on full and immediate military self-determination and control, like any other fully independent nation. Do you think Israel would agree to that deal any time in our lifetimes?
Agree. Note also that a “fully independent WB” would in theory have the right to invite Iran to set up military bases there.
I don’t think it’s the biggest impediment to a peace deal. The biggest impediment is that the Arabs want there to not be a Jewish State. As long as there exists a Jewish State, the demands, attacks, and other shenanigans will not cease.
Note that in 1947, the Arabs were offered pretty much everything they claim to want now and they rejected it and went to war instead. Because they did not want there to be a Jewish State. There is essentially no evidence that their general attitude has changed since then.
Also note that between 1947 and 1967, the West Bank and Gaza were controlled by Jordan and Egypt. During that time, was there a big push for Jordan and Egypt to create a “Palestinian State”? Did the Palestinian Arabs call for boycotts and diplomatic pressure against Jordan and Egypt to end an “occupation”? Of course not. Because the real problem for them was not that they didn’t have a Palestinian State. The real problem was that there existed a Jewish State. Again, there is essentially no evidence that their attitude has changed since then.
You need to keep in mind that these calls for a Palestinian State are a red herring. The Arabs do not want a Palestinian State except insofar as it would be a useful vehicle to undermine Jewish Israel.
Surely, from the most cynical pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian POV possible, you would grant that if Palestine thought that they could achieve full independence, they would at least pay lip-service to Israel’s right to exist for as long as it took them to build up their defensive and *offensive *military capabilities with the help from their allies.
And as long as we’re talking extreme cynicism… On the flip side of that coin, one might suspect that Israel pulled out of the much more militant (and much less strategically and geographically important) Gaza because they pretty much fully knew what would happen, and knew that they could use that as justification for why they couldn’t possibly be expected to allow that to be repeated in the WB.
Well, I’m not sure that at that point it would really be up to Israel to determine.
But, FWIW, yes, I think it would still be an issue. I don’t think there would be any issues with a police force, even a super-strong one for internal affairs. But nothing heavier than that. If Egypt agreed to that WRT Sinai, why wouldn’t the Palestinians?
One point to think about – given that a future Palestine (at least to begin with) wouldn’t have any real enemies, as virtually all of the Arab states support them, and Israel would sign a peace treaty with them – why would they need a military force?
I don’t know if they are smart enough to do that but it’s possible.
Yes, it’s possible that Israel wanted to demonstrate to themselves and the world the nature of who they are dealing with. So what?
The bottom line is that based on all the facts, it’s very reasonable to be mistrustful of Arab motives and intentions in this conflict. I realize that most people really really wish and hope that the Arabs just want a (23rd) state so they can enjoy self-determination and autonomy. Unfortunately, there is often a big gap between wishes and reality.
I’m in a hurry and gotta go for now, but I want to respond to some things before the conversation moves on.
Well, the Sinai is mostly wasteland and but a mere fraction of Egypt’s landmass, so no big deal for Egypt to agree to that. A much bigger deal for Palestine to agree to the same over their whole, relatively small landmass.
So what? They pulled out of the much less deserving of the two Palestinian areas. If their goal was to pull out in hopes of peace, they picked the wrong one. If they wanted to bolster the more reasonable PA, and weaken the less reasonable Hamas, again, they picked wrong. If they wanted a true and fair “demonstration to themselves and the world” they picked the wrong one.
If they wanted to hold on to the WB for as long as possible, and figured some rockets from Gaza would get the job done, then they chose wisely.
See above. And, ISTM, (again, I’m no expert) if they weren’t hoping for failure, they could have done it in a *much *more orderly and negotiated manner.
True. But from Israel’s POV, the two are similar - an area, previously held by an enemy who initiated aggression against Israel, and then lost the area in war that cost the lives of many Israeli. Said area is now in the possession of Israel, who has the power to continue holding it.
Why would we agree to jeopardize our security by allowing a potentially hostile army to be built on our borders?
I’m asking the following questions because I’m having a hard time finding a reliable answer on the internet. Did Hamas in their charter call for the destruction of Israel? If the answer is yes, did Hamas amend the charter to no longer call for Israel’s destruction?
To the point: because I don’t trust peace treaties too much, I won’t take the chance that the future Palestine would not hold to it and would initiate aggression from the WB.
As the current situation goes, Israel has the power to keep the area in relative peace. In order for the situation to change, Israel must be sufficiently assured that the new Palestinian state would not (and basically – could not) be used as a jumping board for the next all-out war on Israel.
Maybe I’m being a bit paranoid here – but I honestly think that it’s for a good reason.
Lol, Hamas was not in power at the time of the Gaza pullout.
You are confusing cause and effect here. Hamas came to power in Gaza as a result of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and not vice versa. And if Israel pulls out of the West Bank, it won’t be long until rockets start falling on Tel Aviv every day.
Again showing that appeasement is counter-productive. And showing that there is no need for Israel to manipulate things so that the Arabs misbehave towards Israel.
I hope that’s a rhetorical question (I think it is), since I’m not arguing it either way. I would like there to be relative peace and harmony, however that can best be achieved. I was just trying highlight what I believe to be the biggest sticking point, which IMO gets much less attention than the other, more negotiable issues.
But you’ve pretty much confirmed my thoughts - there’s very little chance that Israel will allow a completely independent nation in the WB. The tougher question is what kind of deal would they go for? Do they trust Jordan enough to go for an arrangement like I alluded to previously? (Assuming Jordan and Palestine would even entertain the idea in the interest of peace.) I don’t think Israel would go for any kind of UN peacekeeper deal, given their experiences with the UN over the years, not to mention how toothless and ineffective a lot of other similar UN peacekeeping missions have been.
What kind of deal re: Palestine’s military status would be mutually agreeable? To me, that’s the most important question that few people ever seem to attempt to address. (For obvious reasons, I guess, since it’s a real doozie!)
I don’t think the facts are particularly controversial, its their interpretation that raises questions - the Hamas Charter states unequivocally that their goal is to destroy Israel and that negotiation for a peace is not possible, and it has never been amended.
The standard Hamas line is that the Charter can’t be amended “for internal reasons” but that “it’s a piece of history, no longer relevant”.
Palestinians hopefully state that an analysis of other Hamas documents reveals that it is “de-emphasizing” religion and religious struggle as a motive for action, and focusing more on pragmatic nation-building:
As ususal in these matters, one can believe what one wants to believe. My own opinion is that Hamas wishes to present one face to its true believers, and another to its foreign sympathizers, who find anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli genocide based on religious “struggle” and uncompromising rejection of a permanent peace a trifle difficult to publicly support.
I myself have asked a question several times and so far no-one has had an answer, and it is this: does this putative Palestinain “state” include Gaza or not?
So you are saying that Israel knew in advance of the Gaza pullout that Hamas would get control and knows in advance that if it pulls out of the West Bank, Hamas will NOT get control?