Judeopundit, observed an under-noticed story in the New York Times the other day, Arab Leaders Say the Two-State Proposal Is in Peril. In the Perils to Two-State Pauline, by way of introduction he provides some background, in fine factious fashion:
Back in the days when Hamas lead the Enemies of Peace on Both Sides Inc., Palestinian Division, Israel negotiated the beginning of a two-state solution. They negotiated in good-faith, and together with Yassir Arafat, who was negotiating in bad faith, there was some implementation of the solution. Some of that implementation still stands: that is why Israel recognizes something called the “Palestinian Authority,” although the former enemies of peace, now friends of Hudna, have since seceded from it.Back in 2000 (aided and abetted by famous advocates of Apartheid Dennis Ross and Bill Clinton) the Zionist Entity made a serious final status proposal. It was met with an increase in terror. Then, of course, Israel created further obstacles to peace in 2005 by putting Gaza, some of the territory offered in 2000, into Palestinian hands anyway. The non-achievement of Palestinian state viability, we learn, threatens more “radicalism,” but if that is where the radicalism comes from then what did the Saudis spend their money on, anyway?
Surely it makes the Times article easier to swallow when you recall that despite the righteous calls of Saudi leaders for “peace” they used to hold telethons to raise funds for the families of suicide bombers.
Israel Matzav working off a different version of the news observes:
‘Our friends the Saudis’ are threatening to withdraw their ‘peace initiative’ in which they have offered ‘full recognition’ of Israel (but not diplomatic relations – contrary to what the al-AP article quoted below implies) in return for Israel returning to the pre-1967 Auschwitz borders and allowing the country to be flooded with ‘Palestinian refugees’ that will make it into another Arab state. Unless, of course, Israel accepts it immediately.
My Right Word looks at the elements of the so-called peace offer and rejects them:
The Arab League’s plan’s main operative section reads:- I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.
II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.
III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Those are unacceptable. They deny the history of the conflict, ignore Arab agression, rewards Arab terror, inadequately provides for Israel’s future security and existence and Jewish character.
He also links to a more detailed analysis of the “Saudi peace offer.”
Last month Joshuapundit noticed something else disconcerting about the Saudi plan.
Price Turki al-Feisal, a senior Saudi prince and the former ambassador to the US and the UK was unintentionally revealing today in an interview with reuters as to what Israel’s Jews can expect if they acept the Saudi `peace’ ultimatum.Prince Turki, who was previously head of Saudi intelligence, said that if Israel accepted the Arab League plan “one can imagine the integration of Israel into the Arab geographical entity….We will start thinking of Israelis as Arab Jews rather than simply as Israelis,” he said.
Or, in simple terms, Israel will be `absorbed’ into the Arab world and it’s Jews will become dhimmis, living at the sufferance of the Arab majority…just like in the good old days,when Jews knew their place, took care to keep their heads from ever being higher than a Muslim’s and mostly lived under conditions that make the old Jim Crow South look positively beneficial.
Getting back to the NY Times, we read:
Egyptians and Jordanians say that the way events have evolved, there is no likelihood that a real Palestinian state would be formed. A truncated entity, one dotted with Israeli settlements and divided by internal Palestinian conflict, would in the end be no state at all, and would serve only to empower radicals and fuel the conflict in perpetuity, Arab political analysts and government officials said.
The “internal Palestinian conflict” is whose fault again?
That despair is accompanied by anxiety and fear that momentum is moving in favor of the more radical players, like Hamas and its patron state, Iran.“Hamas is going to be fortified,†said Mahmoud Shokry, a retired Egyptian ambassador to Syria who serves on the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, a government advisory group. “Not only Egypt, but all the Arab countries have to think about this.â€
A few months ago Egypt conspired (with Iran) to allow a group of Hamas affiliated participants go on hajj to Mecca from Gaza, preferring that group over a group of Fatah affiliated participants approved of by Israel. So for an Egyptian official to lament about the strengthening of Hamas (and Iran) is sheer hypocrisy.
Egypt worries that absorbing Gaza would seem to extinguish the rallying cry of Arabs for a Palestinian state. It would also be a financial burden and create a potential for spreading throughout Egypt the kind of Islamic extremism promoted by Hamas, which is an offshoot of Egypt’s homegrown Muslim Brotherhood, a group that is banned but tolerated.Jordan sees the prospect of having to take responsibility for the West Bank as a financial burden and an existential threat to its very identity. “There are fears a federation will be forced on Jordan and the Palestinians,†said Taher al-Adwan, editor of the Jordanian newspaper Al Arab Al Youm. “This is completely rejected by the Jordanians and by the Palestinians as well. Jordan is already half-Palestinian.â€
There is also the broader fear, that absorption would make permanent the fight over the land Israel is on, giving radical groups a cause to rally around, and moderates nothing to point to.
A financial burden for Egypt? Well let’s just say that during the recent wall breach, the disparity in wealth between Gaza and the Sinai, was on display. Residents of Gaza came off rather better.
And why would say, Jordan taking on the responsibility of the West Bank threaten it existentially? Why does the reporter fail to inform that the majority of Jordan’s population are Palestinians and having control over more Palestinians might make the population restive against control of the Hashemite occupiers. (The Hashemites originate from the Arabian peninsula.)
An of course there’s still the problem that even the moderates, by advocating resolution 194, aren’t really all that moderate either.
And please make sure that you read Judeopundit in his entirety, especially the sections that put into bold. They’re very telling.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
