This site is best viewed with 800X600 resolution with Internet Explorer
|
|
|
Legitimate and Practical Peace By: More confused than ever on whom, in the Middle East, is for peace and who is against. Is there a way to tell? How can we judge statements, doings, and intentions? On the Israeli side, can we judge in terms of who is with a Palestinian state and who is against? Apparently, it is not going to work simply because the ones who wants to solve the demographic problem through turning Palestinian highly populated areas into autonomous reservations are willing to name them a Palestinian State. Can we judge in terms of who wants to build more settlements and who is against? Difficult, because expanding settlements can be larger in scale and effect than building new ones. What about freezing settlement activities? Will not work because we can never know what a settlement natural growth means. How about dismantling isolated small settlements and move settlers into major settlement blocks? Not really as major settlement blocks needs to grow to accommodate the new comers. What about who is welling to talk to Arafat and who is against? Or who is ready to shake his hand and who is against? Or who is welling to talk with him about more than security issues? Rather not to continue it is already confusing. What about who is welling to redeploys Israeli forces out of a certain percentage of the West Bank and Gaza? Sounds reasonable, but how to calculate the percentage? Is greater Jerusalem included or not? Is the area of the Dead Sea counted? How much more? How much less? Which areas are important for Israeli national interests? Which are parts of Jewish heritage? Which areas are needed to insure mobility and security for settlers? Getting confusing again isn’t it? How about who is willing to use more force against Palestinian rebellions? Or maybe whom is ready to attack the Palestinian Authority compared to who wants to limit attacks to the Palestinian population? Or maybe who is ready to move into area A and the ones who only want to bombard them from adjacent areas? God it appears to be extremely complicated, let us skip it. What about who believe that Palestinian areas “liberated” in 1967 war are occupied areas? What am I crazy? This is even more complicated. The best you can get is the readiness from the side of peace lovers in Israel to sacrifice parts of the grandfather’s land and hand it to Palestinians for the sake of achieving peace. Yet even the ones who are not in love with peace are welling to sacrifice parts of the grandfather’s land for the sake of solving the demographic problem, which jeopardizes the Jewish character of the state. May be the difference is the scale (how much) or the intention (what for)? Can’t quite see the difference so forget about it. All the above-mentioned reasons are very pragmatic but have nothing to do with peace between two nations. The question that all in Israel avoid is a question of principle. Are areas taken through 1967 war occupied Palestinian areas or not? I can understand that by answering with yes Israel will be able to make peace with all of its neighbors but not within itself. I guess this is the problem that all wants to hide. If I am right then can Palestinians help Israel to sustain internal peace? My answer is yes and by being pragmatic in the implementing approach. Let us say and for the sake of the argument that Israel in line with the Palestinian, regional, and international stand, recognized Palestinian territories seized in 1967 war as occupied Palestinian territories. How is it possible for Israel to keep internal peace with the need to totally withdraw from the occupied territories? One major issue is settlements and settlers. Palestinians can help through both long-term implementation and the exchange of territories concept. But here the bases are different from the Camp David negotiations. In this case all Israelis have to decide wither the price to be paid in exchange of keeping the settlement block is worth it or not. It is not a Palestinian Israeli problem; it is an Israeli internal one. To redefine borders within an agreement between both sides Palestinians have the right to demand and Israelis should be able to decide which is more suitable keeping settlement blocks and paying the price or dismantling them and keep what they have. The second major issue is Jerusalem. Taking into account
that settlement blocks in East Jerusalem will be subject to the same principle
applied to other settlement blocks, the whole remaining issue is worship rights,
rights in holy shrines and accessibility. Palestinians can help Israel to keep
its internal peace through agreed upon arrangements, which does not contradict
their sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and provide Israelis with free access and
control over Holy shrines. No Palestinian should accept for Jerusalem to be
closed in front of Jews and guarantees should be given that the pre 1967
conditions will never be repeated. Can Israelis trust Palestinians? My answer is
there is no other choice. | ||||||||||||||||
|
Send mail to [email protected] with
questions or comments about this web site or any of the activities mentioned and
we will be glad to write you back.
|
