Start a blog

Blogs Zion's Corner

So, It Needn't Be Democratic?

By Yisrael Medad
9/15/2010, 12:00 AM
My last blog post referred to the supposed alliance between Israel and the United States and now I've reviewed the remarks of Special Envoy George Mitchell at yesterday's meeting of Israeli, Palestinian Authority and Egyptian leaders at Sharm el-Sheik and I have a problem with Mitchell's language.

First, Mitchell repeats the mantra of 'two states for two peoples' (but that is actually three states for two peoples - Israel, Jordan and a "Palestine"), saying:

"...All of us reaffirmed our commitment to reaching a shared goal of a just, lasting, and secure peace. Our common goal remains two states for two peoples."

He then defines the specific character of those states:

"And we are committed to a solution to the conflict that resolves all issues for the state of Israel and a sovereign, independent, and viable state of Palestine living side by side in peace and security."

and, continuing in an answer to a question, he more explicitly clarifies:

"We have said many times that our vision is for a two-state solution that includes a Jewish, democratic state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a viable, independent, sovereign, and contiguous state of Palestine. But of course, this is one of many sensitive issues that the parties will need to resolve themselves, and that is the point of negotiations. The parties will reach agreement on all major issues."

So, this proposed "Palestine", does it need have to be democratic?  America isn't concerned about that?

And that "contiguity", does it mean all the territories, to the last centimeter, as Sadat used to phrase it, will be surrendered?  The Arabs don't have to compromise on territory for a war they started? Will Israel's territorial integrity be endangered from without by this proposed "Palestine" while we also are threatened by demands from within for Arab ethnic autonomy?

What is the US planning for Israel?