Israeli rejectionism?

Posted: June 10th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: In the News, The Settlements | Tags: , , , , , , , | 21 Comments »

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas recognizes Jewish rights in Israel, and is ready for a two state solution with some borders modifications that will allow Israel to keep some of the bigger settlements.

In a meeting in Washington with 30 Jewish leaders, among them those who supports Netanyahu’s government such as AIPAC and ADL, Abaas declared that if Israel accepts a solution based on the 67′ borders, direct negotiations can resume.

Haaretz reports:

The Palestinian president said during the discussion that he had in the past proposed creating a trilateral commission to monitor and punish incitement, but that Israel did not agree to it.

When asked what he could offer Israelis to show that he was serious about peace initiatives, Abbas reminded the participants that he had addressed the Israeli public in an interview on Channel 10. “Why wouldn’t Bibi go to Palestinian TV and do the same?” said the Palestinian president.

“I would never deny [the] Jewish right to the land of Israel,” Abbas then declared.

A few months ago, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said that he is ready to have the Palestinian refugees return to the Palestinian state (rather then Israel), so basically, it can be said that all of Israel’s major concerns have been met by the Palestinians. We need to appreciate the price Palestinian leaders are paying at home for such declarations.

Yet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to show very little enthusiasm for the diplomatic process, and his senior cabinet ministers keep opposing any concessions. Deputy PM Moshe Yaalon just recently said in an interview to Yedioth Ahronoth that “nobody in the seven ministers cabinet (the Government’s decision making forum) believes we can reach an agreement.”

The reason for Israeli rejectionism lies in the internal political dynamic in Israel. No matter what Palestinians say or do, Israeli leaders have no real incentive to go through the extremely difficult process of evacuating settlements. This is why they are preparing the public for a failure of the negotiations, even though we now have the most moderate Palestinian leadership ever.

UPDATE: Laura Rozan’s report of Abbas’ meeting with Jewish leaders refers to a couple of important issues which Haaretz didn’t mention: PM Olmert’s “generous offer” which the Palestinians supposedly turned down, and the demilitarization of the Palestinian state:

It was his first such public forum speaking event in Washington ever, Brookings’ Vice President and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk noted when he introduced the Palestinian leader, who he said he had known since 1993.


Indyk pointed out that it’s generally understood in the West that Abbas did not accept the proposal Olmert offered, based on 1967 borders and agreed land swaps, but Abbas said they were still negotiating when Olmert stepped down amid an Israeli corruption investigation.

“The man has said in the clearest of terms he accepts Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assessment of a demilitarized state,” former Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) told POLITICO Thursday. “He doesn’t want tanks, he doesn’t want missiles, he wants an internal security force.”

21 Comments on “Israeli rejectionism?”

  1. 1 anonymous said at 3:24 am on June 10th, 2010:

    Oh great!

    Oh, wait. Did he say Israel should commit to 1949 borders in order to begin negotiations?

    That contradicts 242 and 338. He knows that.

    He also knows that 1949 borders include the part of Jerusalem with that pesky little wall next to that pesky memory of a temple.

    Come on. Noam, who is kidding who?

  2. 2 noam said at 5:11 am on June 10th, 2010:

    anonymous: the “1949″ borders, which everyone calls “pre 1967″ borders, are the best solution from an Israeli point of view as well (except for the arrangement in the holy basin). the reason is simple: if Israel demands land east of the green line, why shouldn’t the Palestinian demand land west of it?

    1967 borders are a reasonable starting point for both sides. and beside, what alternative do you offer?

  3. 3 Anon II said at 6:10 am on June 10th, 2010:

    Having that memory of a Temple in Palestinian hands, but accessible to Jews, would be a very good daily reminder of what happens when (historically or divinely ) when Israel replaces God worship of worship of the Temple.

  4. 4 Yishai Kohen said at 6:25 am on June 10th, 2010:

    The simple fact is that the Philistines could have had a state in peace, but chose war on MANY occasions- INSTEAD:

    The Philistines would have had a state IN PEACE in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it.

    They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it (and Jews would have even been restricted from BUYING land from Arabs).

    They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it (and actually claimed that the UN had no such mandate!).

    They could have had a state IN PEACE in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza from 1948-1967 without any Jews- because the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every last one; but they violently rejected it. In fact, that’s exactly when they established Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964).

    They could have had a state IN PEACE after 1967, but instead, the entire Arab world issued the Khartoum Resolutions:

    A. No peace with Israel
    B. No recognition of Israel
    C. No negotiations with Israel

    They would have had a state IN PEACE in 2000 with the Oslo Accords, but they violently rejected it- as always.

    The Arabs will just have to learn to “make do” with their own 99.9% of the Middle East- including all of the oil, and stop trying to steal OUR tiny 1/10th of 1% without oil. The Philistines won’t have a state here in Israel, and if they don’t stop their violence, they won’t even exist here anymore. They will be gone- sent back to their own lands elsewhere.

    And THEN there will be peace.

  5. 5 ANON II said at 8:58 am on June 10th, 2010:

    Yishai -that is exactly the bar Kokhva thinking that led to the galut– you seem to want another millennium of stupid ghetto thinking before we learn the lesson of not being Zealots, Sicari or following false Messiahs (like the West Bank fanatics) and learning that half a loaf alive is better than the whole loaf dead. “Because of OUR sins we were exiled… “and you want to commit them again?.

  6. 6 anonymous said at 9:16 am on June 10th, 2010:

    “if Israel demands land east of the green line, why shouldn’t the Palestinian demand land west of it?”

    That’s what Barak offered at Taba and Olmert offered in 2008. There is nothing wrong with the Palestinians demanding land in exchange for the 4% of the West Bank Israel is going to keep.

    Pre-1967 borders are 1949 borders. 1949 borders were found to be inadequate for many reasons, including absence of access to holy sites in Jerusalem and the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from east Jerusalem and the West Bank.

    There is no need to reinvent the wheel here, which is why it’s ridiculous that you’re allowing Abbas to basically move all the talks between the two sides and OFFERS by Israel back more than a decade.

    Here, watch this:
    “I would never deny the Palestinian right to the West Bank and I encourage us to start talks as soon as the Palestinians agree the baseline excludes them from the Haram al Sharif.”

    Did that actually mean anything, Noam?

    He’s playing a game and you’re playing along. I know why he’s playing this game, but why are you?

  7. 7 Yishai Kohen said at 10:01 am on June 10th, 2010:

    It isn’t at all like Bar Kochba.

    The simple fact is that the Philistines have violently rejected a state time and again.

    THEY are the zealots, and that’s why they don’t have a state.

    This conflict isn’t territorial: it’s existential. For them, NO Israel within ANY boundaries can exist. That’s why even from 1948-1967 they tried to “throw the Jews into the sea”. Again, that’s exactly when they established Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964).

    And when we left Gaza, what did they do? They immediately began shooting THOUSANDS of missiles at Israeli civilians and elected Hamas to rule them. So as to not overload this one post, I will post key elements of Hamas’ Covenant in another post afterwards- and this was BEFORE we blockaded them.

    PS I live in Judea and Samaria.

  8. 8 Yishai Kohen said at 10:04 am on June 10th, 2010:

    At least Hamas says what they mean. Fatah also believes in no Israel, but they veil it in subterfuge and “diplomacy”:

    The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) (18 August 1988)

    (From the Preamble)

    Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

    Article Six:

    The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine…

    Article Seven:

    …the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

    “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

    Article Eight:

    Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

    Article Eleven:

    The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

    This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

    It happened like this: When the leaders of the Islamic armies conquered Syria and Iraq, they sent to the Caliph of the Moslems, Umar bin-el-Khatab, asking for his advice concerning the conquered land – whether they should divide it among the soldiers, or leave it for its owners, or what? After consultations and discussions between the Caliph of the Moslems, Omar bin-el-Khatab and companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, it was decided that the land should be left with its owners who could benefit by its fruit. As for the real ownership of the land and the land itself, it should be consecrated for Moslem generations till Judgement Day. Those who are on the land, are there only to benefit from its fruit. This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.

    Article Thirteen:

    Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion…

    Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

    “But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah.” (The Cow – verse 120).

    There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors…

    Article Fourteen:

    …liberation of Palestine is then an individual duty for very Moslem wherever he may be…

    Article Twenty-Eight:

    The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

    … Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. “May the cowards never sleep.”

    Article Thirty-Two:

    … When they (the Jews) will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

  9. 9 ANON II said at 10:11 am on June 10th, 2010:

    “PS I live in Judea and Samaria” There is nothing preventing Israelis khutz laaretz from expressing their views. I’m sure you can obtain Palestinian citizenship when the state of Palestine is declared and it will allow you dual nationality (or triple if you are a US citizen).

  10. 10 Yishai Kohen said at 10:31 am on June 10th, 2010:

    ANON II,

    Israelis in chutz la’aretz do express their views just like those of us who live in the heartland of israel.

    There won’t ever be a state called “Palestine”; not here in OUR land.

    Not west of the Jordan River.

    Everyone knows that.

  11. 11 noam said at 2:25 pm on June 10th, 2010:

    Yishay: You’ve just proven my point. It doesn’t matter what the Palestinian do. Israelis simply don’t want to leave the West Bank.

  12. 12 Yishai Kohen said at 7:55 pm on June 10th, 2010:


    You haven’t read any of my posts.

    The Philistines never wanted a state as much as they wanted to destroy OUR state. Judea and Samaria are, and were, a red herring.

    The Arabs chose war even when NO Jews were here in Judea or Samaria- when every last one had been ethnically cleansed, and Gaza is the proof today.

    They blew their chance for a state here because that’s not REALLY what they want.

    Just remember one thing:

    * The Tel Aviv municipality was built on the ruins of al-Jammasin al-Gharbi.

    * Tel Aviv University was built on the ruins of Sheikh Muwannis.

    * The Kiryah was built on the ruins of Sarona.

    And there`s also al-Mas`udiyya.

    They DO plan on returning to those places.

    No, the half a million of us Jews who live over the “green line” will not be ethnically cleansed again. We will remain where we are in the Promised land- and we will continue to grow and thrive.

  13. 13 anonymous said at 11:52 pm on June 10th, 2010:

    Noam, he hasn’t proven any point. Just 4 years ago Olmert was voted in after promising to leave the West Bank like Israel left Gaza.

  14. 14 Yishai Kohen said at 12:19 am on June 11th, 2010:


    In 2008, Olmert offered the Philistines 98.5% of the land being NEGOTIATED.

    Now, as we all know, in negotiations, BOTH sides are expected to compromise.

    98.5% to the Philistines vs. 1.5% to Israel is not a compromise: It’s outright capitulation.

    And STILL the Philistines rejected it.

    Why? because the issue of land is a red herring. It isn’t about a parcel of land. It’s existential. Again, NO Israel within ANY boundaries can exist. That’s why even from 1948-1967 they tried to “throw the Jews into the sea”. Again, that’s exactly when they established Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964).

    And when we left Gaza, what did they do? They immediately began shooting THOUSANDS of missiles at Israeli civilians and elected Hamas to rule them (and see Hamas’ Covenant above).

  15. 15 Michael LeFavour said at 4:11 am on June 11th, 2010:

    Noam – There is no 67′ borders. How can you base negotiations on nothing? Negotiations should be based on fact first.

    The Jewish homeland already has an Arab state on the lion’s share of it and the cease fire lines have already proven to be indefensible. The Palestinian state is under occupation by Hashemite invaders. The only negotiations should be who is going to pay for the Arabs to move there.

  16. 16 ANON II said at 11:37 am on June 11th, 2010:

    No arguments necessary to those who want a one Jewish state solution. It is a matter of their idolatrous faith whose watchword is shma yisrael midinat yisrael midinat ekhad. All the rest is commentary.

  17. 17 noam said at 1:22 pm on June 11th, 2010:

    Yishai, anonymous:

    just a thought – is there something the Palestinians can do which will prove that we can leave the WB and give them their own state?

  18. 18 anonymous said at 9:01 pm on June 11th, 2010:


    How about we get Fatah to actually change their charter? And how about at their next congress, we encourage them to drop the combative language and instead absorb a language of peace. How about having that language of peace offer compromise on key sticking points such as “refugees” and the Temple Mount.

    How about when they talk about east Jerusalem, they talk about the importance of the Temple Mount and the Jewish Quarter to Jews and Jewish history. And I mean that they should do all these things in Arabic, not in English for the consumption of dupes while in Arabic they say the opposite a la Arafat.

    You know, that would give me confidence that they mean it.

    Heck, I would just accept a real offer of peace and reconciliation.

  19. 19 noam said at 11:36 pm on June 11th, 2010:

    so basically what stands between us and you admitting it’s time to get out of the West bank is a change to the Palestinian charter, and a speech by Abu-Mazen in which he will talk about Jewish history? If the Palestinians do that and Israel would still not evacuate territory, you would say its time to apply pressure on Jerusalem?

  20. 20 anonymous said at 8:35 am on June 12th, 2010:

    A speech by Abu Mazen isn’t enough. Arafat gave speeches as well. Then, in Arabic, he gave different speeches and then, after peace talks, he organized a war.

    A change in the charter would go a long way because in order to get there, they would have to have a very bitter debate and vote on it.

    After that, some efforts to show they mean it.

    As for putting pressure on Jerusalem, I’m not sure what you mean. Israel offered to leave most of the WB and has already left Gaza. If the Palestinians wake up tomorrow morning and say to the world “we accept Olmert’s or Barak’s proposals,” there will be peace. You should be applying pressure in Ramallah, Noam, because Israel has already done what I’ve asked of the Palestinians.

  21. 21 Yishai Kohen said at 12:43 pm on June 12th, 2010:


    No. It’s too late. They have blown too many opportunities. There’s only going to be one state here- Israel.

    The Arabs have a state called Jordan.