This is why Dan Gillerman is the man I’m going to marry (once I steal him from his wife of umpteen years):

“The 29th of November is a reason for celebration,” said Gillerman, who spent the last few days at the conference in Annapolis. “On this date, the world got a gift: a state which contributes to humanity more than all the countries in the UN that mourn on this day.”

The date in question is the anniversary of UN Resolution 181, which partitioned the British Mandate of Palestine into two countries, one for Jews, and one for Arabs.

For Palestinians, November 29 is a day of regret. Since 1977, this day is earmarked at the UN as an annual day of “Solidarity with the Palestinian People,” and is typically commemorated as a day of mourning. Part of the discussion in Thursday’s General Assembly meeting was reserved for the “Question of Palestine,” an annual ushering-in of several anti-Israel resolutions.

“Israel recognized two states for two peoples already 60 years ago,” Gillerman said. “If the Arabs would have agreed to the historic partition plan, the Palestinians would have had a state for 60 years. What would a 60-year-old Palestinian state look like? Look at what Israel has accomplished in 60 years, where we are and where those who tried to destroy us and who continue to try to destroy us are today.”

Of course, they never wanted a state. And they don’t today. There are some Palestinians who pretend otherwise (more on that tomorrow), but there’s a reason the UN refuses to stop holding commemorations on November 29th. They don’t really want the Jewish state, either.

In a sense, today Israel is 60 years old today. The partition plan that split the portion of the Palestine Mandate that hadn’t already been lopped off to create Transjordan (now Jordan) into Jewish and Arab sections was approved today.

Infolive.tv sums it up nicely

Sixty years later, Israel is still under threat, and continues to strive for recognition in the Arab world. Israel sixty years later, still suffers from Palestinian initiated violence and terror and still strives to live within secure borders. It appears that despite all negotiations for peace, history once again is repeating itself. As Israel marks the 60th anniversary of the UN Resolution 181, the United Nations declares an official day of solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Yes today is International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people one of those days-whose-name-is -so-loaded-it-must-be-a-creation-of-the-UN. And of course it is celebrated today as a poke in the eye of Israel. However, the Palestinians might want to be careful about the full implications of Resolution 181. Media Backspin notes

The official map of what would have been the UN’s Jerusalem district includes the areas of Bethlehem, Maale Adumim, Motza, Shuafat and beyond, far surpassing anything Israelis or Palestinians would now define as “Greater Jerusalem.”

Israel Matzav concludes

So when you hear the UN bashing Israel today, just remember that the Arabs could have had their ‘Palestinian state’ sixty years ago if that’s what they really wanted. Of course, it isn’t. The ‘Palestinians’ don’t want their own state: They want to destroy the Jewish state and murder all the Jewish inhabitants in the area. We cannot give them that opportunity.

There’s an irony now, that even as today is an effort to turn back the clock, this week’s Annapolis conference will start a process to provide the Palestinians the deal they could have had seven years, if what they really wanted was a state.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

The appointment of James Jones as a mediator in the Middle East doesn’t bode well. The previous military man appointed to the region, Gen. Dayton, hasn’t worked out so well. The problem with the mediators is that their job is to report progress. If the Palestinians won’t adjust their demands but Israel can be pressured to, well that’s what they’ll do.

It is interesting that President Bush apparently has a sense of America’s limitations.

“America can’t impose our vision on the two parties,” Bush said.”If that happens, then there’s not going to be a deal that will last.”

Still what’s troubling is that President Bush has contradictory impulses, earlier in the article he says

President Bush on Wednesday told CNN he would personally “facilitate” peace negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis, saying the formation of a democratic Palestinian state was the best way to bring peace to the region.”A democracy on Israel’s border is important for Israel’s security and that very democracy is important for the Palestinians to have a hopeful life,” Bush said. “It is also important for the broader Middle East.”

If a democracy is a precondition for peace, why isn’t the United States first working on setting up mechanisms of democratic government in the PA controlled areas before encouraging discussions on final status issues.

Then, at the end of the article, we read Palestinian negotiator

Saeb Erakat said the two sides can “absolutely” fashion a peace deal by the end of next year.However, he said, the deal must come in the form of a package that resolves at least six points: Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel, Jerusalem as the shared capital of a future Palestinian state, settling on borders, security and water supply.

Israel will add the condition that the conflict must end, Erakat said.

In other words all Israel demands is that the conflict must end? Isn’t that the point of any “peace” negotiations, why should that be an Israeli demand? In fact, wasn’t the end of the conflict already promised by Yasser Arafat back in 1993 and enshrined in his letter to then PM Rabin?

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

So once again Israel is being assumed to make concrete concessions to achieve what had already been agreed upon in the past. Worse, that’s what’s considered an Israeli “demand.”

But then isn’t it odd to negotiate with someone who doesn’t even believe in your right to exist?
(via memeorandum)

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.