|
|
Make a Comment
 |
|
| Me
|
03/14/05 |
| Concerned is too myopic... |
|
|
|
|
Hey Concerned, don't think you're being too fair on the Palestinans....while I agree, Hamas et al quite clearly have military objectives, it would be pulling the wool over the readers to suggest the more militant of Israeli factions don't think the same thing.
The guy who killed Yitzhak for example, was part of a faction that believed that Israel is their birthright and therefore, killing of Palestinians or even their own kind is justified to suit their ends. It takes two hands to clap: no one is saying that the Palestinians have no faults - but an argument on the premise that Palestinans have all the faults reeks of one sitting on a moral high horse. Maybe it's time to come down and walk with us mere mortals.
While I'm not passing judgment on this, nor am I competent to do so, what I think is clear is that passioned judgments based on religion and not reason would only serve to inflame the debate. You, my friend, are doing just that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tom Smith,
New York NY |
05/24/04 |
| Looking at both sides |
|
|
|
|
There are extremist positions on both sides. The settler movement in Israel also seeks the creation of a single state "from the river to the sea".
However, it is the two state solution that is now the internationally accepted blueprint for peace in the region. This involves both sides recognising the rights of the other to establish a state in the territory of mandatory Palestine.
This involves the extremists on both sides giving up their dreams of a state "from the river to the sea".
It also involves a partition of the land.
If the questioner disputes the right of Palestinians to establish their own state on the West Bank and Gaza, then this conversation can go no further. The purpose of my paper, after all, was not to defend the two-state solution, but rather to explore ways in which the international community can help bring the two-state solution about.
In order to bring about a two-state settlement I stated that both sides require political independence, and that both sides require security within their borders. The full text of my conclusion recognised these dual concerns:
"It is important to emphasise that a two-state vision can fulfill the goals and concerns of both sides. Palestinian concerns for political independence will only be achieved when reasonable Israeli concerns for security are met. Moreover, Israel will only really achieve its security once it ends its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and allows the Palestinian inhabitants of the Territories their independence."
This is why the active engagement of the international community is required. To guarantee the security of Israel, whilst at the same time guaranteeing Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Under international law the West Bank and Gaza are clearly identified as occupied territories. I refer the questioner to the statement by the International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, 5 December 2001:
“The ICRC has always affirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied since 1967 by the State of Israel, including East Jerusalem. This Convention, ratified by Israel in 1951, remains fully applicable and relevant in the current context of violence.”
The text of the Fourth Geneva Convention says that the occupying power may not alter the character of the territory it occupies, and it may not transfer its own civilian population into the occupied territory.
The wall, the bypass roads, and the settlements would all seem to be in violation of this convention, since they are built inside the territory that Israel occupied in 1967.
A two state solution will only come about when both populations can be secure within their borders. This involves not only Israelis being free from suicide attacks, but also Palestinians living in security within the 1949 armistice line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Concerned
|
05/22/04 |
| Flawed Premise, Unfortunately |
|
|
|
|
The author concludes "Israel will only really achieve its security once it ends its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and allows the Palestinian inhabitants of the Territories their independence."
The problem with this wishful thinking is that Hamas and Hizzbolah both openly declare their intent is to ELIMINATE the ENTIRE State of Israel. Go look at their webpages (eg., "from the river to the sea").
The PA's first and foremost obligation under Oslo was and remains to reject and prevent the use of terror. Yet Arafat continues to support and encourage terror when he speaks in Arabic.
Oddly, one would think from this article that all the obstacles to the 2 state solution are caused by Israel (eg., "rapidly changing facts on the ground are making the two-state solution more and more difficult to implement. The continuing intensification of settlement programmes in the West Bank, the building of exclusive bypass roads to link settlements to Israel, the construction of a separation wall deep into Palestinian territory; these immovable changes to the character of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) are threatening the creation of a viable Palestinian state and jeopardizing a peaceful partition of the land."). While I could take issue with much of this quote, suffice it to say that at least the wall and bypass roads are in response to continued terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, both inside and outside of Israel proper.
This seems to reveal a bias on the part of the author that is not appropriate in the mediation context. But, that is not surprising given the recent articles concerning the Middle East which have been published on this website.
Perhaps the author (and editorial board) ought to consider the saying "If the Arabs laid down their weapons tomorrow there would be peace in the Middle East. If the Israelis laid down their weapons tomorrow, tomorrow there would be no Israel." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
