One State or Two State or No State #Today : THU 19 MAR 2015 :
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is expected to cobble together a majority coalition in the coming weeks made up of religious and nationalist parties that generally oppose concessions toward the Palestinians, and a new centrist party whose agenda is focused almost entirely on domestic economic matters. The issue of the Palestinians is not expected to be high on the agenda
The main reason for Israel to not accept a two-state solution with the Palestinian people is that Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups will be in charge of a Palestinian State. They then will attempt to add Jerusalem to the Palestinian State.
At an election rally in the southern town of Kiryat Gat Feb. 5, less than a month before his scheduled speech to Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu wondered aloud, “What will happen to each piece of land from which we withdraw?” He stated “This land would be taken over by radical Islam,”
There are major reasons for a one state solution:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not see Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has struck a unity deal with the Islamist group Hamas, as a partner for peace
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu vowed to increase settlement construction in east Jerusalem, the Palestinians’ would-be capital, and rejected the idea of a Palestinian state in current conditions — putting him at odds with U.S. and European positions and reversing his own policy of the past six years.
We can’t ignore the reality in the Middle East, withdrawing from captured land to make way for a Palestinian state “is not relevant” in the current climate. Most Israeli citizens believe any land Israel relinquishes to the Palestinians will fall into the hands of hostile militant groups like Hamas or the Islamic State.
“In the situation created in the Middle East, any territory that will be evacuated will be taken over by radical Islam and terrorist organizations supported by Iran,” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said. “Therefore, there will not be any withdrawals or concessions.”
“All six prime ministers since the signing of the Oslo Accord agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state,” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said. “So why was peace not achieved?” His answer: “Because up to now, the Palestinians have rejected an arrangement for a Palestinian state as long as they have to agree to a Jewish state at its side.” Netanyahu promised that “the face of history will be changed” if only Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas tells his people these words: “I will accept a Jewish state.”
In an interview published 12 FEB 2015 on an Russian-language Israeli website, the Likud chairman said, “Even if the Palestinians agree to all our demands in return for our withdrawal, the danger will remain of a radical Islamic takeover.” Netanyahu stated that he was “aware of the danger of a binational state, and I don’t want it,” adding that despite this danger, he was “not willing to try and cure a headache with a guillotine. I am not willing to commit suicide.” By stating this, Netanyahu actually moved from the position he had been expressing over the last few years, in which the two-state solution was essential to prevent Israel from becoming a binational state.
In November 2009, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat proposed the adoption of the one-state solution if Israel didn’t halt settlement construction: “it is time to refocus their attention on the one-state solution where Muslims, Christians and Jews can live as equals… It is very serious. This is the moment of truth for us.”
In 2011, a poll by Stanley Greenberg and the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and sponsored by the Israel Project revealed that 61% of Palestinians reject a two state solution, while 34% said they accepted it. 66% said the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state. : Hamas position is that all the land is Palestinian – Therefore, Israel not wanting to be Islamic should fight for a one-state solution of equality for Jews, Christians and Muslims, excluding terrorist organizations that do not recognize Israel.
The question is whether Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu – who shifted sharply to the right in the last days of his campaign this MAR 2015, using messages such as the ‘no-state’ pledge to successfully draw right-wing votes away from ultranationalist parties – really meant what he said. And if so, what it means for the Palestinians, relations with Israel and the future of the peace process.
Currently, A Palestinian state is not tenable.
What about infrastructure, electricity, water?” Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon, said on BBC radio the very idea of two states was unworkable. “The Palestinians are connected to us like a Siamese twin, so the whole idea of full separation from Israel is not viable.”
Israeli right-wing leaders like Naftali Bennett, the head of the pro-settler Jewish Home party and a candidate for a top post in the next government, advocate Israel’s annexation of most of the West Bank, while granting the Palestinians “enhanced autonomy” within the remaining 40 percent of the territory. The impression that emerges is that Israeli leaders on the right would ultimately prefer a model in which the Palestinians have a high degree of self-rule but Israel’s military retains control in a form of “benign occupation” of the West Bank.
By The Jerusalem Post staff , U.S. News and World Post
