Why isn?t an independent state good enough for the Arabs?
This is the top question that we need to pose in future negotiations ? if they ever happen ? between Israel and the Palestinians. This question goes to the basic motives of the Palestinians in their future designs.
This question formed in my mind as I read through the main clauses of the Geneva Accord, as outlined in Philadelphia?s Jewish Exponent.
When Yasser Arafat came to Israel in 1993, I was under the impression that the Oslo agreement was the foundation for an eventual Palestinian state. Then Arafat started making statements of establishing a capital in Jerusalem.
Huh? Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It is an integral part ? no, it is the center ? of the Jewish state. What is Arafat talking about? Keep dreaming. I thought this idea might go away.
In the negotiations at Camp David during the summer of 2000, President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak and other participants exerted much effort in devising a settlement. Barak was prepared make extensive concessions, which many supporters of Israel opposed.
After all that, here was the deal-breaker: Arafat wanted sovereignty over the Al-Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem. He had to know that the Israelis would never go for that. If they did, would that be enough?
These are two of the key provisions in the Geneva Accord launched the other week, to celebrate an unauthorized settlement aimed at achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
The accord has been vilified by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and various supporters of Israel. I personally have no problem with Israelis and Palestinians devising such an agreement. If this so-called settlement has such little merit, then why should Sharon be bothered? Besides, if he can?t take the heat from this, how can he possibly find the strength that a leader needs to run his country?
Let?s try to examine the accord on its merits. Creation of a Palestinian state comprising Gaza and most of the West Bank is an obvious feature, which might make sense, not that I necessarily support even that. This aspect would take up a column in itself.
More important are these two clauses, as outlined in the Exponent:
?Jerusalem would be split into two capitals. Israel would keep Jewish neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem, while Arab and other non-Jewish neighborhoods of the city, including all of the Old City except for the Jewish Quarter, would come under Palestinian rule.
?Palestine would have sovereignty over the Al-Aksa Mosque and the Temple Mount, Judaism?s holiest site. Jews could visit the Temple Mount, but not pray there. Israel would have sovereignty over the Western Wall.?
How does either clause help Palestinians who are locked in poverty? I thought the idea was to give the Palestinians a mechanism to control their destiny and improve their lives. That?s what an independent state is supposed to do, so why move into Jerusalem and haggle over control of the mosque?
Sure, there are Arabs living in Jerusalem, but there are also Arabs living in Haifa, Tel Aviv and other Israeli communities.
Of course, that signals the most obvious suspicion, that they want it all. Today, Jerusalem. Tomorrow, all of Israel.
The only practical reason I can recognize is that these provisions will give the Palestinian negotiators some political ammunition to sell the plan to their people. Certainly, not even that satisfies many of the extremists among them.
If real negotiations ever get underway once again, the Palestinians are welcome to put Jerusalem and the religious sites on the table. That doesn?t mean Israel should accept those provisions if the Arabs can?t justify any of them.
This is the top question that we need to pose in future negotiations ? if they ever happen ? between Israel and the Palestinians. This question goes to the basic motives of the Palestinians in their future designs.
This question formed in my mind as I read through the main clauses of the Geneva Accord, as outlined in Philadelphia?s Jewish Exponent.
When Yasser Arafat came to Israel in 1993, I was under the impression that the Oslo agreement was the foundation for an eventual Palestinian state. Then Arafat started making statements of establishing a capital in Jerusalem.
Huh? Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It is an integral part ? no, it is the center ? of the Jewish state. What is Arafat talking about? Keep dreaming. I thought this idea might go away.
In the negotiations at Camp David during the summer of 2000, President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak and other participants exerted much effort in devising a settlement. Barak was prepared make extensive concessions, which many supporters of Israel opposed.
After all that, here was the deal-breaker: Arafat wanted sovereignty over the Al-Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem. He had to know that the Israelis would never go for that. If they did, would that be enough?
These are two of the key provisions in the Geneva Accord launched the other week, to celebrate an unauthorized settlement aimed at achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
The accord has been vilified by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and various supporters of Israel. I personally have no problem with Israelis and Palestinians devising such an agreement. If this so-called settlement has such little merit, then why should Sharon be bothered? Besides, if he can?t take the heat from this, how can he possibly find the strength that a leader needs to run his country?
Let?s try to examine the accord on its merits. Creation of a Palestinian state comprising Gaza and most of the West Bank is an obvious feature, which might make sense, not that I necessarily support even that. This aspect would take up a column in itself.
More important are these two clauses, as outlined in the Exponent:
?Jerusalem would be split into two capitals. Israel would keep Jewish neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem, while Arab and other non-Jewish neighborhoods of the city, including all of the Old City except for the Jewish Quarter, would come under Palestinian rule.
?Palestine would have sovereignty over the Al-Aksa Mosque and the Temple Mount, Judaism?s holiest site. Jews could visit the Temple Mount, but not pray there. Israel would have sovereignty over the Western Wall.?
How does either clause help Palestinians who are locked in poverty? I thought the idea was to give the Palestinians a mechanism to control their destiny and improve their lives. That?s what an independent state is supposed to do, so why move into Jerusalem and haggle over control of the mosque?
Sure, there are Arabs living in Jerusalem, but there are also Arabs living in Haifa, Tel Aviv and other Israeli communities.
Of course, that signals the most obvious suspicion, that they want it all. Today, Jerusalem. Tomorrow, all of Israel.
The only practical reason I can recognize is that these provisions will give the Palestinian negotiators some political ammunition to sell the plan to their people. Certainly, not even that satisfies many of the extremists among them.
If real negotiations ever get underway once again, the Palestinians are welcome to put Jerusalem and the religious sites on the table. That doesn?t mean Israel should accept those provisions if the Arabs can?t justify any of them.